Jump to content


Photo

On Evolution's Credibility


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
135 replies to this topic

#81 ringo

ringo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 29 June 2012 - 11:07 AM

So you've totally backed off the assertion that there is no reason for similarity from creation?


I've tried to clarify it: creationism has no real reason for similarity, only an ad hoc one.

#82 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 29 June 2012 - 11:18 AM

Ad hoc reasons are real reasons.

Have you backed off the assertion that there is no reason for similarity from creationism?

#83 ringo

ringo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 29 June 2012 - 11:27 AM

Ad hoc reasons are real reasons.

Have you backed off the assertion that there is no reason for similarity from creationism?


I've given you my answer. I don't consider ad hoc reasons to be "real".

#84 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 29 June 2012 - 01:58 PM

Then you're being irrational and intractable. If you cannot be convinced by the actual meanings of standard individual words, why should we listen to anything else you might have an opinion on?

From Wiki:
Note that an ad hoc hypothesis is not necessarily incorrect; in some cases, a minor change to a theory was all that was necessary. For example, Albert Einstein's addition of the cosmological constant to general relativity in order to allow a static universe was ad hoc. Although he later referred to it as his "greatest blunder", it may correspond to theories of dark energy.

#85 ringo

ringo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 29 June 2012 - 02:37 PM

From Wiki:
Note that an ad hoc hypothesis is not necessarily incorrect; in some cases, a minor change to a theory was all that was necessary. For example, Albert Einstein's addition of the cosmological constant to general relativity in order to allow a static universe was ad hoc. Although he later referred to it as his "greatest blunder", it may correspond to theories of dark energy.


To clarify further, a hypothesis can start out on an ad hoc basis but it has to be testable to go any further. Can you test your hypothesis that God decided to make humans and animals similar? What repeatable experiments would you propose?

If the hypothesis is testable, I'm willing to concede that it's real.

#86 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 29 June 2012 - 05:44 PM

What experiments do you propose to back up your idea that creatures are similar due to evolution?

#87 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 29 June 2012 - 07:55 PM

The trouble is that there's no reason for them to be similarly designed. Similar design suggests a lazy designer, not an omnipotent one. The Bible and creationism have been around for a long time. If they had any reason to think the species were similarly designed, creationists should have predicted it first.


That's easily refuted. The bible says that God created different kinds and no one has even been able to imagine what a transition between different phyla would even look like. For instance, compare a humming bird to a blade of grass or an elephant to a apple.

Stephen J. Gould, Harvard, "Our modern phyla represent designs of great distinctness, yet our diverse world contains nothing in between sponges, corals, insects, snails, sea urchins, and fishes (to choose standard representatives of the most prominent phyla).", Natural History, p.15, Oct. 1990

And what about scientists being knocked out of their boots when they found an entire ecologial niche thriving off of hydogen sulfide near hydrothermal vents?

#88 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,676 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 29 June 2012 - 09:58 PM

That's easily refuted. The bible says that God created different kinds and no one has even been able to imagine what a transition between different phyla would even look like. For instance, compare a humming bird to a blade of grass or an elephant to a apple.

Stephen J. Gould, Harvard, "Our modern phyla represent designs of great distinctness, yet our diverse world contains nothing in between sponges, corals, insects, snails, sea urchins, and fishes (to choose standard representatives of the most prominent phyla).", Natural History, p.15, Oct. 1990

And what about scientists being knocked out of their boots when they found an entire ecologial niche thriving off of hydogen sulfide near hydrothermal vents?


It also allows us to eat them, allowing synthesis of new DNA with digested nucleotide parts etc
  • AFJ likes this

#89 ringo

ringo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 30 June 2012 - 10:48 AM

What experiments do you propose to back up your idea that creatures are similar due to evolution?


The point is that evolution explains why we're all similar - because we're all related; we have a common ancestor. Creationism doesn't explain why God decided to make us similar; just He coulda/would/shoulda if He wanted to.

#90 ringo

ringo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 30 June 2012 - 10:51 AM

It also allows us to eat them, allowing synthesis of new DNA with digested nucleotide parts etc


That's actually a good point. :)

#91 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,676 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 30 June 2012 - 09:06 PM

Thanks. If I was a designer I and I wanted an ecosystem where organisms fed on one another compatibility of the organic substances when digested would be quite high in my list.

#92 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 01 July 2012 - 03:45 AM

The point is that evolution explains why we're all similar - because we're all related; we have a common ancestor.

"We're" all similar because "we" are all people.

Creation explains similarity between kinds. Similar creatures were designed in somewhat similar ways.

Creationism doesn't explain why God decided to make us similar; just He coulda/would/shoulda if He wanted to.

And, to be consistent, evolutionism must then explain why evolution decided to make some organisms similarly.

And why are you dodging the question? What experiments do you propose to show that creatures evolved similarly due to evolution?

#93 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,676 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 01 July 2012 - 05:41 AM

To be honest both arguments stem from a lack of empirical evidence, both are tied to worldviews however I must say that that the belief in the supernatural is much more consistent with reality than with naturalism (the belief in nothing but nature). Considering that the origins of the universe, of higher elements, of planetary bodies and life itself conflict with known preprogatives of nature and how it operates, naturalism has no stance in any of the questions of origins, therefore the supernatural can be dubbed as the null hypothesis whereby when it is PROVEN (by these contradictions to natural laws / how nature operates) that nature has no answer / reason / cause, then the ONLY answer / reason / cause can be supernatural since ONLY the supernatural can bend / break reality / nature in order for these events, (that defy nature / reality) to come to pass.

Therefore the belief that God (or otherwise- I am a theistic agnostic Posted Image ) created life is the most logical reason based on the facts at hand.

#94 ringo

ringo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 02 July 2012 - 09:06 AM

"We're" all similar because "we" are all people.


We're similar enough to pigs so that "we" can use pig insulin. Pigs are "us".

And, to be consistent, evolutionism must then explain why evolution decided to make some organisms similarly.


We're similar because we're related. Humans and bats and whales all have similar hands because we have a common ancestor. My cousins and I have similar DNA because we have the same grandparents.

What experiments do you propose to show that creatures evolved similarly due to evolution?


Check out the DNA of siblings, first cousins, second cousins, etc. Then check out the DNA of humans, chimps, pigs, etc. If there are corresponding similarities, we can infer corresponding relationships.

#95 ringo

ringo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 02 July 2012 - 09:12 AM

... then the ONLY answer / reason / cause can be supernatural since ONLY the supernatural can bend / break reality / nature in order for these events, (that defy nature / reality) to come to pass.


The biggest problem with that reasoning is that our understanding of the natural keeps improving. To our primitive ancestors, fire was supernatural but now we can make it in the lab. Posted Image

#96 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,676 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 02 July 2012 - 05:39 PM

The biggest problem with that reasoning is that our understanding of the natural keeps improving. To our primitive ancestors, fire was supernatural but now we can make it in the lab. Posted Image


Yet what fire actually is is still unknown, (you cannot get a sample of fire for analysis).

However notice how the reasoning takes place when there is a contradictions with the nature of reality. Therefore for the event to occur it needs to deft reality, yet the only thing that can do so is a supernatural event. It is not an ad hoc proposal it is a deductive claim.

#97 ringo

ringo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 03 July 2012 - 10:49 AM

Yet what fire actually is is still unknown, (you cannot get a sample of fire for analysis).


So it's a good analog of abiogenesis. Even when we can do abiogenesis in the lab, even when you can carry a box of abiogenesis sticks in your pocket, we still won't know everything about abiogenesis.

But claiming that abiogenesis is impossible is no more reasonable than claiming that matches are impossible.

#98 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 03 July 2012 - 12:18 PM

So it's a good analog of abiogenesis. Even when we can do abiogenesis in the lab, even when you can carry a box of abiogenesis sticks in your pocket, we still won't know everything about abiogenesis.

But claiming that abiogenesis is impossible is no more reasonable than claiming that matches are impossible.


Matches exist, but abiogenesis has not been observed so your comparison is illogical.

#99 ringo

ringo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 03 July 2012 - 12:44 PM

Matches exist, but abiogenesis has not been observed so your comparison is illogical.


The argument is about the possibility of an event. I'm saying that you shouldn't be claiming something is impossible just because it isn't understood yet.

(You guys really need to make more of an effort to understand an argument instead of just nitpicking schoolboy logic. Posted Image )

#100 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 03 July 2012 - 03:53 PM

The argument is about the possibility of an event. I'm saying that you shouldn't be claiming something is impossible just because it isn't understood yet.

(You guys really need to make more of an effort to understand an argument instead of just nitpicking schoolboy logic. Posted Image )


You argued that claiming "abiogenesis is impossible" is just as absurd as claiming "matches are impossible". Since matches are definitely possible (based on seeing them many times), your analogy implies that abiogenesis is also definitely possible. Since you do not know if abiogenesis is possible or impossible, you cannot claim abiogenesis is definitely possible. You either intended this or you didn't, but I did not misinterpret it, nor did my understanding suffer from lack of effort.

I agree with what you are now saying, that claiming 'abiogenesis is impossible' is fallacious/an argument from ignorance. Your analogy did not convey this.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users