Irony of the evolutionary belief

[Subduction Zone]

There is a big difference between

1) classifying animals (or plants) according to their real characteristics, which is very useful for our knowledge of the reality, and

2) determining the order of appearance of the different species and their supposed relationship of "familiarity" depending on that classification that was artificially created.

Whoever does the second is locked in a vicious circle.

Going by appearance was only a start. It gave us a testable idea. That idea has been tested and confirmed more than any other idea in all of the sciences. Those that accuse scientists of circular reasoning are only fooling themselves or incredibly ignorant.

There have been times as we learn more and more where a new technology could have refuted the theory of evolution. Instead each time they confirm it. Meanwhile there are no creation scientists any more. Not one that I know of. The few that are left are pseudoscientist like Michael Behe. Michael Behe was the man that came up with "Irreducible Complexity". When he first presented it it was properly done as a testable hypothesis. That is how science is done. Good for him. But his idea was tested and found to be false. At that point as a scientist he had two choices. He could have admitted that he was wrong and everyone would have accepted that and told him that it was a good try at least or he could have continued his work and reformed his idea and presented another testable hypothesis. Either of those would have been honorable. All scientists are wrong at times and if you were never wrong in any of your work you probably are not a publishing scientist.

So what did Behe do? He took a third route. He redefined IC so that it was no longer testable. An idea that cannot be tested is worthless since there is no way to show whether it is false or not. That is pseudoscience. His work became "Not even wrong." Scientists do not think that ideas shown to be wrong are worthless since how they were shown to be wrong often leads to finding the correct answer. He was not even that.

That is why Behe has no respect in the sciences. He took his education and threw it away.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Some theorists speculate about parallel worlds or different dimensions...

From the perspective of an atheist-style BigBang, is it possible that a world where intelligence also exists and is invisible to the human eye has appeared in parallel to the physical world?

What difference would there be between that "atheist" point of view and the reality of the spiritual world of which the Bible speaks?

That is speculation. That is not science. There is no way to confirm or refute pure speculation. We cannot even say if it is possible or not.

Science deals with ideas that can be shown to be false if they are wrong. Nothing is ever "prove" but sooner or later scientists admit that a hammer will fall when you drop it. But that is still only tentatively true in the sciences.

 

[Eli G]

Evolutionists believe that science belongs to them. I find it so funny!!!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evolutionists believe that science belongs to them. I find it so funny!!!

No, you should not make false accusations about others. And please, do not use derogatory terminology. If you want to you could say "realists" if you want to add an "ist" to them. Scientists follow the scientific method. It is well defined. If one decides not to follow it, as Michael Behe did, that is easily shown. In the Dover trial it became obvious to the judge that Behe was not doing that.

You could easily learn the scientific method and see ow Behe failed. Would you like to go over the idea? Please note, Behe was not thought to be a nut when his idea was shown to be wrong. He was thought to be a nut when his first version of IC was shown to be wrong and he redefined it so that it could not longer be tested. He stopped following the scientific method.

 

[Pogo]

Evolutionists believe that science belongs to them. I find it so funny!!!

No but it does belong to those who are willing to follow evidence rather than blind belief in campfire stories.

 

[Eli G]

I don't even know who that Behe is ... I couldn't care less what someone I am ignoring thinks about me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't even know who that Behe is ... I couldn't care less what someone I am ignoring thinks about me.

It is pretty clear that you are only pretending to ignore. You may not have a response. That would at least be honest.

I explained who Michael Behe is to you. I explained why he failed to you.

Creationists could try to use the scientific method to support their claims but none of them ever do. You should wonder why they are afraid to do so.

 

[Eli G]

LOL, how persistent! Not that I cared about anything he writes. What a way to waste time!

Good afternoon everyone. Have a nice night with your loved ones.
Love you

 

[Subduction Zone]

No but it does belong to those who are willing to follow evidence rather than blind belief in campfire stories.

I know. There are quite a few theists, most of them probably Christians, that follow the scientific method. They almost all accept evolution. One does not have to believe that one's God is a liar to be a Christian. For some reason creationists do not seem to agree with that. For example, 10 years ago there was one top textbook in biology across much of the US. I do not know if it has been replaced by a newer work. The author was an MIT professor of biology who is also a devout Christian. You can read his work here for free:

Miller & Levine Biology : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

T26, xxii, 1034, DOL 64, A24, G34, I-19, C3 pages : 29 cm

archive.org

 

[Valjean]

I can't sit down and analyze nature and life for you.

No problem. It's already been analyzed.

There is a big difference between

1) classifying animals (or plants) according to their real characteristics, which is very useful for our knowledge of the reality, and

2) determining the order of appearance of the different species and their supposed relationship of "familiarity" depending on that classification that was artificially created.
Whoever does the second is locked in a vicious circle.

Vicious circle? Please explain.
Isn't there overwhelming evidence that the similarities
described by the old Linnaean system are due to heredity?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Evolutionists believe that science belongs to them.

Anti-evolutionists have no use for it. They have their Bibles instead.

I don't even know who that Behe is

He's like you but famous.

 

[Eli G]

...He's like you but famous.

The one who invented the Piltdown man is very famous too.

 

[leroy]

In the loosest of senses this is true, you are comparing 2 ideas with no evidence for either so one could say they have equal probabilities but better to say it is undefined.
The problem is you are trying to assign a probability to a claim without evidence and probability is the likelihood of an event in an event space and needs to include all possible events.
sayak83 said: this fairly well recently
"This is actually mistaken. Every positive claim is false by default unless shown otherwise by supporting evidence.
This can be shown very simply.
For every thing X that does exist or is the state of affairs, there are an infinite number of Y alternative possibilities that could have existed or could been the state of affairs but is not actualized in reality. So without supporting evidence, the default probability for any positive claim to be true is vanishingly small while the default probability of the corresponding negative claim to be true is very close to 1.
Hence the laws of logic dictates that a claim like "X exists" is to be considered false unless properly justifies by evidence. On the contrary a claim like "X does not exist" does not require any evidential backing initially."
Both your claims 1 and 2 are positive claims without evidence.

Probability is not really an intuitive subject but taught as a college level math course.

As I made clear. I am not talking aiut objetivo probability in the mathematical sence. But rather the subjective probability that you personally asign.


With that said . you seem to prefer option 2 over option 1 why ?

1 the big bang was caused by God

2 the big bag was casued y an unknown natural mechanism

 

[Valjean]

yeah well I haven't read any history of leprechauns as I do read about God and his people in the Bible.

So? How does that constitute evidence?
I read about hobbits and orcs in Lord of the Rings, too, but there's no objective evidence that they actually exist.

I was watching a program with fantastic views of cacti and birds in the desert. It brought tears to my eyes it was so fantastic. There is no way that evolutionists' can explain these things.

But there is, as you well know.

They may try but they cannot. These boards have proved to me that what the Bible says is true and what others say in opposition to the Bible is not.

The evidence has been presented and explained to you many times. You delude yourself.

LOL...that's what I've learned from these boards. Thanks! And the theories become more and more convoluted, if possible.

What theories?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The one who invented the Piltdown man is very famous too.

Oh my! Really? Hoaxes do not disprove ideas. Which is lucky for you as a Christian. In the middle ages and even later there were so many "holy relics" in churches that a man could have built Noah's Ark from all of the pieces of the True Cross and the nails that usually accompanied them. There are still huge supporters of the Shroud of Turin when the Catholic Church took it of of the hands of a man using it for is own hoaxes. The fact that it is a hoax does not refute Christianity but it seems that the weak in faith think that is what people are trying to do when they show how it is a fraud.

 

[Pogo]

As I made clear. I am not talking aiut objetivo probability in the mathematical sence. But rather the subjective probability that you personally asign.


With that said . you seem to prefer option 2 over option 1 why ?

1 the big bang was caused by God

2 the big bag was casued y an unknown natural mechanism

Well since I have never seen anything done by a god and lots of things follow apparently natural processes I'm going to listen to Nigel and say 11 because it is one louder.

 

[leroy]

This is a failed question because you are making a false assumption. We know that there are natural mechanisms. We do not even know if a God is possible. A God may be impossible. So to consider the two starting points to be equal is fallacious on your part. You need at least some sort of evidence or reason to claim that a god exists.

Sounds like a word game and an excuse to avoid the question . All I need to do is change the word God for Designer . And your whole argument will collapse

So

1 the big bang was caused by a designer

2 the big bag was casued y an unknown natural mechanism


Why do you prefer 2 over 1?

We know that Designers and nature excist. So we are even.

..

 

[Valjean]

Some theorists speculate about parallel worlds or different dimensions...

From the perspective of an atheist-style BigBang, is it possible that a world where intelligence also exists and is invisible to the human eye has appeared in parallel to the physical world?

An atheist-style Big Bang?!
Wouldn't an intelligence "invisible to the human eye" be indistinguishable from a non-existent intelligence?
And why speculate about parallel worlds? We have such a world right here.

What difference would there be between that "atheist" point of view and the reality of the spiritual world of which the Bible speaks?

Evidence?

How would such a spiritual world be detected? -- and what is an "atheist point of view?"

 

[Eli G]

@Valjean, com'on, make at least a minimal effort to understand what others write by yourself. Can you?

 

[leroy]

Well since I have never seen anything done by a god and lots of things follow apparently natural processes I'm going to listen to Nigel and say 11 because it is one louder.

By your logic


1 We know elephants excist

2 We dont know about a hypothetical form of matter that produces gravitational efects , but doesn't interact with light or the electromagnetic field (dark matter)

So by your logic and @Subduction Zone ) elephants are a better explanation than dark matter for the observed gravitational lensing


Dont you see any flaws in this logic ?