Audie
Veteran Member
And the message could of course have been implanted in our DNA - perhaps we are still decoding this.
Or maybe it will show up after the 666th trillionth decimal place in Pi
-
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!
Creation and Evolution Compatible...Questions
- Thread starter Deeje
- Start date
Or maybe it will show up after the 666th trillionth decimal place in Pi
You are really comparing the thin knowledge they had/have concerning the origins of the universe with anything else? There is plenty of evidence pointing to the ToE as being essentially correct. I would question all science - I hardly expect science to have full answers to everything or anything, but I hardly think I am in a position to dispute much of it because I, like most people, just don't have the necessary knowledge to do so. Do you?
Audie
Veteran Member
Consensus was that "piltdown" was fake.
"Darwinism" is not a sensible word to use.
The ToE is not "Darwinism".
As for skeptical and educated, being skeptical for no reason may
be smart and it may be dumb, it may even be done by educated people, but, you know? Why bother, if you have nothing?
I could be skeptical that Australia is really where they say it is. So?
I am not big on just taking someone's word for something. But there
is sensible and there is silly.
Science is a method, of course. And as for conclusions, well.
as Feynman put it, "this is what I think I see, as now it seems to me to be."
Now, as for some sort of data contrary to ToE?
This is kinda like, "where's the beef?"
You have not shown any yet.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
There is a little more than would fit into a forum post!- but let me try to at least summarize:
There are 3 main lines of evidence: Fossil record, DNA, direct experimentation. (inc mathematical modelling)
I accept the existing empirical fossil record data as is; gaps, jumps, stasis, explosive appearances and all. I have no need to add any artistic impressions for missing links, no excuses for why they were never found
I accept the DNA evidence, an uncannily computer like machine code, an integrated hierarchical information system- I accept there is only one known method by which such systems are originated, by ID, I have no need to speculate that perhaps some unknown naturalistic mechanism can achieve likewise
I accept also the direct scientific experimentation: bacteria remain bacteria, no matter how much evolutionary pressure and random mutation is applied. I have no need to believe otherwise, that despite this, it MUST have happened- simply because my theory demands that it did.
Most of all the mathematical modelling, which in turn backs up the physical observations, random mutation is of too limited a creative capacity to account for the sophistication we see in life. I accept this, I have no need to put faith in an unknown hypothetical mathematical algorithm that would work
Must run but will respond, I appreciate the civil debate
Audie
Veteran Member
I dunno about a little more, its a little less
than one datum point.
Concentrate on one, if you can find one, One is plenty.
Quite a bit of editorializing, but I didnt see any data.
You could equally offer to say that there is evidence that any scientific theory in existence is wrong, because there are aspects that are unknown.
Something as simple and seemingly unassailable as the gas laws, well, they have not been tested under ALL possible conditions, so, they might yet fail. Unproven, and all.
Why pick out ToE, or do you feel that all of science is
wrong?
On the fossil record...you have some other way to account for the progression of changes over a period of hundreds of millions of years?
Anyway, this is still SDF.
You have data?
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
I dunno about a little more, its a little less
than one datum point.
Concentrate on one, if you can find one, One is plenty.
Quite a bit of editorializing, but I didnt see any data.
You could equally offer to say that there is evidence that any scientific theory in existence is wrong, because there are aspects that are unknown.
Something as simple and seemingly unassailable as the gas laws, well, they have not been tested under ALL possible conditions, so, they might yet fail. Unproven, and all.
Why pick out ToE, or do you feel that all of science is
wrong?
On the fossil record...you have some other way to account for the progression of changes over a period of hundreds of millions of years?
Anyway, this is still SDF.
You have data?
Here is the same then with numbers if it helps!
number of bacteria that mutated into something other than bacteria in the lab
0
number of computer models that successfully reproduced Darwinian macro evolution
0
The Cambrian explosion has become progressively more explosive, shorter, in stark contrast to predictions inherent to Darwinian theory. down to a few tens of millions of years at most.
Last edited:
Audie
Veteran Member
Here is the same then with numbers if it helps!
number of bacteria that mutated into something other than bacteria in the lab
0
number of computer models that successfully reproduced Darwinian macro evolution
0
The Cambrian explosion has become progressively more explosive, shorter, in stark contrast to predictions inherent to Darwinian theory. down to a few tens of millions of years at most.
Are you under the impression that bacteria are in some way thought to be the earliest life forms, or what?
What is the point of that?
I believe you are wrong about computer program / evolution. But so what if in fact nobody can write such a program?
You should check out Evolutionary algorithms, and the fields of Artificial life and Computational Evolutionary biology.
If you keep saying "Darwiniain" I can only conclude that you are deliberately being unreasonable and insensible.
As for your comments on "Cambrian explosion", are you saying that the "explosion" took place over tens of millions of years?
I think your "stark contrast" and "Darwinian theory" are just editorializing, which impresses me not, as a substitute for data.
"Predictions inherent" likewise. You keep tossing out these assertions, but backeth them up not.
Also, I did ask for one topic, and there is an element of gish to your response.
You didnt say anything to this-
Why pick out ToE, or do you feel that all of science is
wrong?
On the fossil record...you have some other way to account for the progression of changes over a period of hundreds of millions of years?
I will be well satisfied to see one data set that contradicts the ToE.
One topic. Not three, not ten. One. It is all you need. If it is real and relevant.
A data set is not a mistake Darwin made, not a creationist computer geek with
an opinion, not a strawman about bacteria. If data sets at all, they do not
do anything at all.
Here is the same then with numbers if it helps!
number of bacteria that mutated into something other than bacteria in the lab
0
number of computer models that successfully reproduced Darwinian macro evolution
0
The Cambrian explosion has become progressively more explosive, shorter, in stark contrast to predictions inherent to Darwinian theory. down to a few tens of millions of years at most.
Birth of New Species Witnessed by Scientists
https://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
So still a bird, in fact still a finch, with a slightly wider beak, an unusual voice, and nobody else wants to mate with them, by which definition my sister in law is a new species also
Not to be facetious, but is that really the best example of evolution you could find? if so who's side of the argument are you on?
cladking
Well-Known Member
Think of it this way.
Somehow science got the idea that reality is the rainbow but the reality is closer to reality being the blackness between the colors.
We fill in the blanks with extrapolation of experiment. We fill in the blanks in spectra with a rainbow. We fill in the blanks between species with the ToE.
Our minds don't accept blank spaces so we fill them.
Science isn't "wrong" but our interpretation is. ToE isn't entirely wrong but its perspective is. ...In my opinion.
The concept of a Creator is virtually excluded by most peoples interpretation of scientific fact about change in species but is not so excluded by what the actual science says.
cladking
Well-Known Member
And still you ignore the fact that all known change in all life is sudden. Yet here you are proposing a causation that acts slowly and one animal at a time.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
The basic ToE neither cites nor denies there's a creator-god(s), so it is neutral on that issue.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
Evolutionary biologists generally agree that humans and other living species are descended from bacterialike ancestors. But before about two billion years ago, human ancestors branched off. This new group, called eukaryotes, also gave rise to other animals, plants, fungi and protozoans.
extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We can test, observe, measure adaptation, we can't say the same for such macro evolution speculation- no way around that.
It is not just the sudden appearances that are remarkable and problematic for Darwinian predictions, but the vast periods of stasis, 100s of millions of years with no evolution taking place. These observations could hardly diverge any more from the slow steady changes originally predicted
It would be helpful if the theory could be modeled mathematically, there are many extraordinary systems in nature we can do this for, Darwinian evolution is not one of them, we run into fundamental problems and limitations with the algorithm
Dar·win·ism
ˈdärwəˌnizəm/
noun
- the theory of the evolution of species by natural selection advanced by Charles Darwin.
it's pretty commonly understood, some Darwinists refer to themselves as Neo-Darwinists- Darwinist, Darwinian.. is just quicker.
You can call it ToE if you like and I will assume you are referring generally to a Darwinian model of evolution.. would I be wrong?
The Cambrian explosion was known in Victorian times, but the explicit prediction was that it was an artifact of an incomplete record, that should be filled in and smoothed out over time as more fossils were found. 21st C science reveals the exact opposite, the cambrian (and other explosive appearances) have become ever more distinct, abrupt, explosive- to the extent that even many evolutionists have increasingly splintered off into punctuated equilibrium, acknowledging what skeptics predicted all along- the gaps are real
None of these are slam dunk refutations in themselves, but the reality v prediction could hard be less harmonious
well if I had a nickel for every ignored question...
No I don't think science is wrong, I think Darwinism is wrong, atheism is wrong-
^ not only that, but one that can also account for the complete LACK of change over 100's of millions of years observed in some species-
As I said, maybe to somebody else. Darwinism was formulated within a Victorian age model of reality. It was a perfectly logical extrapolation of classical physics at the time, whereby a handful of simple 'immutable' laws + lots of time and space to randomly bump around in.. were all you needed for jolly interesting results to organize themselves eventually!
I agree with Darwin's original premise, life DOES develop in the same general manner as the physics and chemistry which came before it.
Only today that means something else entirely; by a vast archive of finely detailed, guiding instructions, predetermining how where and when development occurs. I see no reason to believe that the mechanism reverts back to a Victorian model at the first replicator.
Physical apples still fall from trees, and genetic apples still fall not far from theirs.. we can observe both scientifically yes? The problem, I submit to you, is extrapolating either of these into comprehensive explanatory mechanisms, they are features of a deeper design, determined by a deeper layer in a hierarchical information system.
i.e. you cannot explain evolution with adaptation, any more than you can explain gravity with classical physics, it is doomed to paradoxical failure
sorry for the length here..
Audie
Veteran Member
Your contention that "all known change in life is sudden"
does not of course say what you mean by change, or how fast is sudden, and, as such, could mean virtually anything. ie, nothing.
Perhaps an example would help,rather than such
generalities.
as for what you say I propose, I'd never have said that, as I do not know what you mean by it. i cannot make sense of it, so, probably not.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
That is just one of myriads of hypotheses, which are not assumed within the scientific community as being "facts".
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Maybe give us one example of that, including how you possibly could know that there's been no change?
Audie
Veteran Member
Think of it this way.
Somehow science got the idea that reality is the rainbow but the reality is closer to reality being the blackness between the colors.
We fill in the blanks with extrapolation of experiment. We fill in the blanks in spectra with a rainbow. We fill in the blanks between species with the ToE.
Our minds don't accept blank spaces so we fill them.
Science isn't "wrong" but our interpretation is. ToE isn't entirely wrong but its perspective is. ...In my opinion.
The concept of a Creator is virtually excluded by most peoples interpretation of scientific fact about change in species but is not so excluded by what the actual science says.
You wont need pictures to tell me how science works... just sayin'.
I dont know what "perspective" about ToE is wrong.
That it does not include "God"?
There could be a 'God", tho there is no evidence of such. You talk about filling in blanks! You come up with something greater than the universe, to fill in blanks!
The "actual science" as you call it, detecteth not this monster.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
False, and an example of that was just given by NASA as the former astronaut Kelly actually had his genes change while in space so that he no longer is an identical twin with his brother.
A general rule-of thumb: all material items appear to change over time and genes are material items.