Coming out as creationists: fear.

[Subduction Zone]

Exactly.

Guy has me on ignore (because I exposed the fundamental flaw in his "argument from cars in junkyards"), but everyone here should note how Guy can only advocate for ID creationism by analogies. He can't point to something in biology that he's determined to be "designed" and describe the method he used to reach that conclusion. As @Thermos aquaticus has shown in this recent exchange, Guy can't even articulate a testable hypothesis for ID creationism.

Instead, all he can do is talk about Rosetta Stones, cars in junkyards, and a logical fallacy about Fred Hoyle.

I think he has me on ignore as well. Defeat a creationist too many times and they tend to do that.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Agreed, and the same goes for ID v Darwinism, (I would submit to you!) we only have one known way to explain the observations of life at the level of the digital information systems Darwin never dreamed of, far less offered a solution for.

Evolution is also a known way of explaining the observations.

agreed again, and that's why Lemaitre was not taken seriously by the scientific community either. Absolutely Hoyle and many others were doing bad science, based explicitly on adhering to personal atheist beliefs, rather than where the evidence led

Lemaitre was taken seriously which is why the BB theory is the consensus opinion in physics.

^ there's your trouble. ID explicitly does not reject common ancestry, if you want to lump it in with creationism you are creating your own confusion there

ID is just fine with all primates, including humans, evolving from a common ancestor by way of the observed natural processes of mutations and natural selection? Is this what you accept as well?

ID predicts that DNA operates very much like an intelligently designed hardware/software system, only far more sophisticated, with no viable natural origin that can be established.

That is a subjective opinion, not an empirical observation.

It predicted for instance that we should find error checking systems, that junk DNA isn't junk after all, that the gaps and jumps in the records are real, not artifacts-
all lucky guesses perhaps?

Junk DNA is junk DNA afterall, so it appears that ID is false.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Evolution is also a known way of explaining the observations.



Lemaitre was taken seriously which is why the BB theory is the consensus opinion in physics.




ID is just fine with all primates, including humans, evolving from a common ancestor by way of the observed natural processes of mutations and natural selection? Is this what you accept as well?

No, I agree with Darwin's original premise, that life probably developed by a similar mechanism as physics and chemistry before it- which in his day meant a handful of simple laws + lots of time and space to randomly bump around in

Today it means according to a vast array of specified information predetermining how, when, where life develops. Incidentally there is a middle ground, if you want to credit the flying spaghetti multiverse with creating this information, that's not a leap of faith not already taken for physics and chemistry... but one way or another, the specified information must be provided somehow. 'random errors' ain't gonna do it


Darwinism predicted the fossil record would smooth out over time, not get increasingly jerky- it's a fundamental prediction of slow steady change thru random mutations, and a fundamental problem that the record did not cooperate
changing the goalposts with punctuated equilibrium is fine, that's progress- but there is a reason validated predictions are valued in science

Junk DNA is junk DNA afterall, so it appears that ID is false.

Likewise, you can only hold to that by moving the goalposts and retreating the definition of 'junk' to other poorly understood regions, it used to apply to all non-coding DNA

Non-coding DNA has been found to be involved in epigenetic activity and complex networks of genetic interactions, and is being explored in evolutionary developmental biology.[4][11][13][14]

 

[Jose Fly]

I think he has me on ignore as well. Defeat a creationist too many times and they tend to do that.

If you (or anyone else) is interested, CLICK HERE to see the post that apparently caused @Guy Threepwood to put me on ignore. Note that I did not engage in any sort of personal attack and instead focused entirely on the arguments he presented.

That leads me to conclude that the only reason he went straight to ignoring me was because he had no response but couldn't bring himself to admit it either.

 

[Deeje]

If you (or anyone else) is interested, CLICK HERE to see the post that apparently caused @Guy Threepwood to put me on ignore. Note that I did not engage in any sort of personal attack and instead focused entirely on the arguments he presented.

That leads me to conclude that the only reason he went straight to ignoring me was because he had no response but couldn't bring himself to admit it either.

Good grief Mr Fly....apparently any response on this topic is all about you? I am putting you on ignore too. You have nothing but this pathetic kind of response to anyone who disagrees with your belief system.

What else do you do here? Sick of your whining.

God bye from me too.

 

[Jose Fly]

Good grief Mr Fly....apparently any response on this topic is all about you?

Um........what? @Subduction Zone and I were talking about how Guy has us both on ignore, so I showed SZ the point in time where Guy did that to me.

How in the world you went from that to "any response on this topic is all about you" is a complete mystery.

I am putting you on ignore too.

I've always figured you would eventually do that.

You have nothing but this pathetic kind of response to anyone who disagrees with your belief system.

Again, simply bizarre. In my last post to you I expressed my bewilderment at how you keep challenging me to present evidence, then you ignore my replies and challenge me to present evidence all over again. And now you've not only repeated that behavior, you've compounded it by putting me on ignore because I documented where Guy put me on ignore after I directly addressed his arguments without any personal rancor at all.

Weird.....just plain weird.

God bye from me too.

Well Deeje, I have to wonder how this little "I'm taking my ball and going home" tantrum from you will play with all these "lurkers" you think you're appealing to. Somehow I get the feeling it won't go over well.

Have fun.

 

[Deeje]

Um........what? @Subduction Zone and I were talking about how Guy has us both on ignore, so I showed SZ the point in time where Guy did that to me.

How in the world you went from that to "any response on this topic is all about you" is a complete mystery.


I've always figured you would eventually do that.


Again, simply bizarre. In my last post to you I expressed my bewilderment at how you keep challenging me to present evidence, then you ignore my replies and challenge me to present evidence all over again. And now you've not only repeated that behavior, you've compounded it by putting me on ignore because I documented where Guy put me on ignore after I directly addressed his arguments without any personal rancor at all.

Weird.....just plain weird.


Well Deeje, I have to wonder how this little "I'm taking my ball and going home" tantrum from you will play with all these "lurkers" you think you're appealing to. Somehow I get the feeling it won't go over well.

Have fun.

Was waiting for your whiney reply.....I wasn't disappointed. "No personal rancor"....?

SZ has been on ignore for some time...you are in good company apparently.
Ecco will be next.....you've all said what you need to say and I have no wish to hear it all again.

Don't you worry about the lurkers...they are doing just fine.

Click...and they're gone....

 

[Jose Fly]

SZ has been on ignore for some time...you are in good company apparently.

I agree. The fact that creationists are scared to death to discuss science with actual scientists (or in your case, terrified to discuss the role your religion plays in your views) says it all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Um........what? @Subduction Zone and I were talking about how Guy has us both on ignore, so I showed SZ the point in time where Guy did that to me.

How in the world you went from that to "any response on this topic is all about you" is a complete mystery.


I've always figured you would eventually do that.


Again, simply bizarre. In my last post to you I expressed my bewilderment at how you keep challenging me to present evidence, then you ignore my replies and challenge me to present evidence all over again. And now you've not only repeated that behavior, you've compounded it by putting me on ignore because I documented where Guy put me on ignore after I directly addressed his arguments without any personal rancor at all.

Weird.....just plain weird.


Well Deeje, I have to wonder how this little "I'm taking my ball and going home" tantrum from you will play with all these "lurkers" you think you're appealing to. Somehow I get the feeling it won't go over well.

Have fun.

Two in one day! Like I said when they can't refute you they tend to put you on ignore.

 

[Deeje]

I agree. The fact that creationists are scared to death to discuss science with actual scientists (or in your case, terrified to discuss the role your religion plays in your views) says it all.

I wondered if you could let it go......looking at your avatar....

Still can't get it through that you have provided nothing that was ever asked of you, and you're still here throwing

If I was scared to discuss anything, you think I'd still be here.....I'm just sick of the wounded egos.

This is all you do.

The last word.......promise.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I wondered if you could let it go......looking at your avatar....

Still can't get it through that you have provided nothing that was ever asked of you, and you're still here throwing

If I was scared to discuss anything, you think I'd still be here.....I'm just sick of the wounded egos.

This is all you do.

The last word.......promise.

The avatar is a joke that you did not get.

 

[ecco]

How about some real "evidence" (heaven forbid we should ask for proof) for your pet theory?

How about some real "evidence" for your heaven?

Note:

• You cannot quote the bible.
• You cannot quote any JW article.

 

[Jose Fly]

The avatar is a joke that you did not get.

Well, creationists are pretty much all fundamentalists, and fundamentalists aren't exactly known for their sense of humor.

 

[ecco]

I wonder what happens next, to a person whose life
is invested in JW or christian science, should the chip chip
chip finally break through, and the person experiences the
epiphany that they have been trapped in a cult.

Then what? Is it for certain that it is for the better?

NO! It would be absolutely devastating. I think people like deeje realize that - way down deep in their subconscious.

 

[Deeje]

How about some real "evidence" for your heaven?

Note:

• You cannot quote the bible.
• You cannot quote any JW article.

I just can't quite get through to the godless around here

....I am the one with a "belief system" and proud of it. I see in creation the hand of a genius so I don't assume that genius needs no intelligence. I cannot see complex organisms with specifically coded DNA as having been accidents or flukes because there are just too many beneficial flukes to be accepted as operating in reality.

You guys are suppose to be the ones with the "overwhelming evidence" to undo my faith in an Intelligent Designer.....yet no evidence presented to date comes close to being anything but wishful thinking and educated guessing. Its all very "underwhelming" IMO.

You have no real evidence or else you and your cronies would have presented it. It would have silenced all the criticism....and yet, still there is nothing.

Your "belief system" is no more substantiated than mine.....face it.....you have nothing that can be backed up by anything but imaginative diagrams and assumption.
Aren't you sick of this empty rhetoric? I know I am.....

Present something factual and I will discuss it.....otherwise you will joining your learned colleagues on the ignore list. Sniping is apparently all you lot are capable of....

NO! It would be absolutely devastating. I think people like deeje realize that - way down deep in their subconscious.

I have to wonder whether the desperation and character assassination that goes on in these threads might just be pointing to something way down deep in your own subconscious.....like what happens if they are right?

Won't it be fun to find out?

 

[exchemist]

Do you have a comprehension problem?

Occasionally, but not often, provided the passage I am reading is clearly expressed and intellectually coherent. I was just taken aback by the lengthy and personally inquisitorial nature of your reply.

On the whole I do not favour the lighting of different fires all over the place, when one discussion is already in progress (currently resting with with my post 216 on this thread.). It is my fault, for muddying the water by agreeing with you on this separate issue, about belief in science. I suppose I thought showing I could agree with you about something might help the relationship. But I'm sorry for the distraction.

By the way, I am more than happy to talk to you about how mainstream Christianity reconciles itself to the advance of science. As you can perhaps imagine, with my background it is something I gave some thought to at university. However I would prefer that to be in a separate discussion, once we have concluded our debate about the nature of theories in science and how that bears on criticism of the theory of evolution.

 

[Deeje]

Forget what you've read, science can't prove a thing

That was actually very good. They admit that the way they use language leaves a lot to be desired.

I like the way it concludes....

"A winning formula

The burden for fixing this communication problem falls most heavily on the scientist. We need to better educate the public about the meaning of our words, and of the basic principles of science. We fail when we assume that everyone thinks or argues the way that we do.

This is a huge challenge in an age of 24-7 news channels that are looking for three-word soundbites.

No-one wants to diminish the accuracy of our statements. But even accommodating the modern media cycle is possible.

So how about this?

In science …

• Everything’s a theory.
• Proof doesn’t exist.
• Nothing is certain."

I agree that this is the way science should be taught.....but we all know it isn't.

When kids leave High School, they are convinced that evolution is the only explanation for life on this planet. When you have that conviction because someone in authority didn't really tell the whole truth, don't you find that a bit dishonest?

Science isn't about 'proof' or 'facts'. A key tenet of science is that EVERYTHING science 'knows' can be superseded once it is disproven. If we have some piece of knowledge 100% correct in every sense of the word, then it would be a fact, but we would never know that, scientifically. Since science MUST always allow the ability to disprove something we already 'know'.
That is the very nature and essence of the scientific method.

And again we all know that that is 'close enough' in the world of science....but 'close enough' is not 'good enough' when they claim something is a fact (like Dawkins and his ilk do) but they don't have anything but a consensus of often bombastic opinions based on very biased interpretation of evidence, to back it up.

Scientists want their evidence to support evolution so that is the way they will see it. Those not convinced that the theory is sound, (often based on observing the same evidence,) come to a different conclusion. Since it appears that science is only interested in promoting a "perception of truth" that is valid for today, but that could be undone tomorrow, I find that to be completely unacceptable.

If you can't prove what you say, then teach it as a tentative suggestion, rather than being more dogmatic about your belief than most religionists are.

Gravity is a simple example. How gullible would someone have to be to NOT believe in gravity? And yet...it's not a fact, nor is it 'proven'.

I don't think that is a fair equivocation. Gravity is provable....all you need to do is drop something heavier than air. It does not require a stretch of the imagination to "believe" in gravity. People come to terms with gravity every time they climb on something and fall off it....or drop that glass vase and watch what gravity does to it very predictably. We all know that what goes up must come down.....its easily testable.

We cant do that with macro-evolution. We have to rely on the way scientists (who are already convinced that evolution is true) interpret the evidence that is before them. Nothing is obvious, in fact many of us find the suggestion that most of it is 'accidental' or 'undirected' to be completely ridiculous.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I agree that this is the way science should be taught.....but we all know it isn't.

You certainly don't. Evolutionary theory is taught as science, thus it is taught as theory.

When kids leave High School, they are convinced that evolution is the only explanation for life on this planet.

Prove it.

When you have that conviction because someone in authority didn't really tell the whole truth, don't you find that a bit dishonest?

Inventing a conspiracy that doesn't exist.

Scientists want their evidence to support evolution so that is the way they will see it. Those not convinced that the theory is sound, (often based on observing the same evidence,) come to a different conclusion. Since it appears that science is only interested in promoting a "perception of truth" that is valid for today, but that could be undone tomorrow, I find that to be completely unacceptable.

So please invalidate it. Go right ahead and earn your Nobel prize.

If you can't prove what you say, then teach it as a tentative suggestion, rather than being more dogmatic about your belief than most religionists are.

It's taught as theory. The key is in the name.

I don't think that is a fair equivocation. Gravity is provable....all you need to do is drop something heavier than air.

Once again you fail to grasp the difference between an observed phenomenon given a name, and the theory used to explain said phenomenon. Gravity is an observed fact just as evolution is an observed fact - allele frequencies in living populations change over time. This is a fact, even you have admitted it. What ISN'T fact is the THEORY that explains the phenomenon, namely the theory of evolution, just as there is the theory of gravity.

It does not require a stretch of the imagination to "believe" in gravity. People come to terms with gravity every time they climb on something and fall off it....or drop that glass vase and watch what gravity does to it very predictably. We all know that what goes up must come down.....its easily testable.

Then please demonstrate that gravity is the force keeping planets in motion.

We cant do that with macro-evolution.

Yes, we can. We've observed macro-evolution.

We have to rely on the way scientists (who are already convinced that evolution is true) interpret the evidence that is before them. Nothing is obvious, in fact many of us find the suggestion that most of it is 'accidental' or 'undirected' to be completely ridiculous.

And those people are poorly misinformed.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

That was actually very good. They admit that the way they use language leaves a lot to be desired.

I like the way it concludes....

"A winning formula

The burden for fixing this communication problem falls most heavily on the scientist. We need to better educate the public about the meaning of our words, and of the basic principles of science. We fail when we assume that everyone thinks or argues the way that we do.

This is a huge challenge in an age of 24-7 news channels that are looking for three-word soundbites.

No-one wants to diminish the accuracy of our statements. But even accommodating the modern media cycle is possible.

So how about this?

In science …

• Everything’s a theory.
• Proof doesn’t exist.
• Nothing is certain."

I agree that this is the way science should be taught.....but we all know it isn't.

When kids leave High School, they are convinced that evolution is the only explanation for life on this planet. When you have that conviction because someone in authority didn't really tell the whole truth, don't you find that a bit dishonest?

I always try to be fair with the things I link to. Not to say I always succeed, but there ya go. Appreciate you taking the time to read it.
Meh, teachers run the full gamut, from great to complete rubbish. I say this having been on both sides of the fence. Some of the crap teachers tried to fill my head with. I suspect some don't understand what they are teaching. Still, some of the blame should go on learners too. I remember a Year 10 teacher (a good one) making some sort of definitive statement about German responsibility for the commencement of World War 1. Most of the class were not interested in World War 1, you may not be surprised to know. I ended up having a friendly but pretty passionate debate about the topic with her right there and then, and ended up being awarded some sort of prize at the end of the year because of it (largely).
We fail ourselves/our kids when we see teachers as people of authority who can't be questioned. But obviously there are ways of questioning.

And again we all know that that is 'close enough' in the world of science....but 'close enough' is not 'good enough' when they claim something is a fact (like Dawkins and his ilk do) but they don't have anything but a consensus of often bombastic opinions based on very biased interpretation of evidence, to back it up.

I commonly find Dawkins good scientifically, and poor philosophically. When he blends the two, the results are...meh. For me, anyway.

Scientists want their evidence to support evolution so that is the way they will see it. Those not convinced that the theory is sound, (often based on observing the same evidence,) come to a different conclusion. Since it appears that science is only interested in promoting a "perception of truth" that is valid for today, but that could be undone tomorrow, I find that to be completely unacceptable.

And here we differ. Greatly.
1) Scientists didn't always overwhelmingly support evolution. Over time, increasing numbers of scientists moved to this position. It was at first ridiculed. Here is one of countless examples of publications poking fun at him for his 'monkey-theory', in this case suggesting that man evolved from worms. Or more specifically, that Charles himself did.

Spoiler

2) The person who can disprove evolutionary theory, or substantially change it, or substantially improve it would become both world renowned and (most likely in this day and age) wealthy. But it's a long standing set of theories that has had a lot of effort put into disproving it, so it will take substantial evidence that something in the theories is incorrect at this point.

If you can't prove what you say, then teach it as a tentative suggestion, rather than being more dogmatic about your belief than most religionists are.

You think the only options are 'proof' (which exists in maths, and is used only colloquially in science) and tentative suggestion? That seems a strangely binary world. Black and white when everything appears to be grey.

I don't think that is a fair equivocation. Gravity is provable....all you need to do is drop something heavier than air. It does not require a stretch of the imagination to "believe" in gravity. People come to terms with gravity every time they climb on something and fall off it....or drop that glass vase and watch what gravity does to it very predictably. We all know that what goes up must come down.....its easily testable.

I didn't mean to conflate evolution and gravity. I meant only to show that even something which is (as you say) easily testable is actually not 'proven' or 'fact'. But it holds more important correlation as well.

Did you know Newton's law of universal gravitation was used to find the planet Neptune? Uranus had been discovered, but it moved in a way which Newton's law suggested was incorrect when considering the other planets. Urbain le Verrier used the law to determine that the motions were consistent with another planet existing, and then Johan Gottfried Galle used le Verrier's calculations to actually find the planet.
So in this, there is some correlation. Science was used to determine Neptune's existence. No-one has seen Neptune. A scientific hypothesis was put forth. Unlike evolution, of course, Neptune did not rely on time, but was 'merely' a physical body.

Consider further. Newton's law is pretty famous. There are stories about an apple hitting him on the head, etc. Gravity existed before he 'discovered' it, but what he did was hypothesise about it's properties. Funnily enough, he was wrong. His law isn't a fact. It hasn't been proven, even by the discovery of a planet!

A discrepancy in Mercury's orbit couldn't be accounted for. At first, scientists figured they knew what was happening. After all, they'd seen it before. But after searching, they couldn't find another planet, impacting on Mercury's orbit.

In the end, Einstein came up with the general theory of relativity, which was simply better, and could account for Mercury.
Interestingly, many scientists still work with Newton's law, since it's simpler to work with, and is generally accurate enough.

So it's a good example of what is meant by 'not proven, and not a fact'. Newton's law is less accurate than Einstein's theory. But Newton's law was accurate enough to discover a planet through hypothesis and calculation. There is, I would suppose, a fair chance that Einstein's theory could be disproven at some point. Yet it will hold utility regardless of that. These are not 'tentative suggestions'.

We cant do that with macro-evolution. We have to rely on the way scientists (who are already convinced that evolution is true) interpret the evidence that is before them. Nothing is obvious, in fact many of us find the suggestion that most of it is 'accidental' or 'undirected' to be completely ridiculous.

We don't 'have to' do anything, as you yourself are proof of.
But for many of us, we find reliance on science in terms of explaining the world around us (flawed as science is) and reliance on ourselves in terms of determining morality (flawed as we are) as a better and more honest way of living than relying on religious dogma. Some think religious dogma is the only path to avoiding flaw. I look for evidence of THAT and end up being told I should rely on elders (who are already convinced their religion is true) to interpret the evidence that is before them. Nothing is obvious, in fact many of us find the suggestion that most of it is 'directed' or 'designed' to be completely ridiculous.

 

[Audie]

I always try to be fair with the things I link to. Not to say I always succeed, but there ya go. Appreciate you taking the time to read it.
Meh, teachers run the full gamut, from great to complete rubbish. I say this having been on both sides of the fence. Some of the crap teachers tried to fill my head with. I suspect some don't understand what they are teaching. Still, some of the blame should go on learners too. I remember a Year 10 teacher (a good one) making some sort of definitive statement about German responsibility for the commencement of World War 1. Most of the class were not interested in World War 1, you may not be surprised to know. I ended up having a friendly but pretty passionate debate about the topic with her right there and then, and ended up being awarded some sort of prize at the end of the year because of it (largely).
We fail ourselves/our kids when we see teachers as people of authority who can't be questioned. But obviously there are ways of questioning.



I commonly find Dawkins good scientifically, and poor philosophically. When he blends the two, the results are...meh. For me, anyway.



And here we differ. Greatly.
1) Scientists didn't always overwhelmingly support evolution. Over time, increasing numbers of scientists moved to this position. It was at first ridiculed. Here is one of countless examples of publications poking fun at him for his 'monkey-theory', in this case suggesting that man evolved from worms. Or more specifically, that Charles himself did.

Spoiler

2) The person who can disprove evolutionary theory, or substantially change it, or substantially improve it would become both world renowned and (most likely in this day and age) wealthy. But it's a long standing set of theories that has had a lot of effort put into disproving it, so it will take substantial evidence that something in the theories is incorrect at this point.



You think the only options are 'proof' (which exists in maths, and is used only colloquially in science) and tentative suggestion? That seems a strangely binary world. Black and white when everything appears to be grey.



I didn't mean to conflate evolution and gravity. I meant only to show that even something which is (as you say) easily testable is actually not 'proven' or 'fact'. But it holds more important correlation as well.

Did you know Newton's law of universal gravitation was used to find the planet Neptune? Uranus had been discovered, but it moved in a way which Newton's law suggested was incorrect when considering the other planets. Urbain le Verrier used the law to determine that the motions were consistent with another planet existing, and then Johan Gottfried Galle used le Verrier's calculations to actually find the planet.
So in this, there is some correlation. Science was used to determine Neptune's existence. No-one has seen Neptune. A scientific hypothesis was put forth. Unlike evolution, of course, Neptune did not rely on time, but was 'merely' a physical body.

Consider further. Newton's law is pretty famous. There are stories about an apple hitting him on the head, etc. Gravity existed before he 'discovered' it, but what he did was hypothesise about it's properties. Funnily enough, he was wrong. His law isn't a fact. It hasn't been proven, even by the discovery of a planet!

A discrepancy in Mercury's orbit couldn't be accounted for. At first, scientists figured they knew what was happening. After all, they'd seen it before. But after searching, they couldn't find another planet, impacting on Mercury's orbit.

In the end, Einstein came up with the general theory of relativity, which was simply better, and could account for Mercury.
Interestingly, many scientists still work with Newton's law, since it's simpler to work with, and is generally accurate enough.

So it's a good example of what is meant by 'not proven, and not a fact'. Newton's law is less accurate than Einstein's theory. But Newton's law was accurate enough to discover a planet through hypothesis and calculation. There is, I would suppose, a fair chance that Einstein's theory could be disproven at some point. Yet it will hold utility regardless of that. These are not 'tentative suggestions'.




We don't 'have to' do anything, as you yourself are proof of.
But for many of us, we find reliance on science in terms of explaining the world around us (flawed as science is) and reliance on ourselves in terms of determining morality (flawed as we are) as a better and more honest way of living than relying on religious dogma. Some think religious dogma is the only path to avoiding flaw. I look for evidence of THAT and end up being told I should rely on elders (who are already convinced their religion is true) to interpret the evidence that is before them. Nothing is obvious, in fact many of us find the suggestion that most of it is 'directed' or 'designed' to be completely ridiculous.

Well said, and I hope D will try to take it in and think about it.