Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
JRChadwick

Behold!

Recommended Posts

I guess it is a few posts late for an introductary thread, but here it is! I'm a Computer Engineering major entering my senior year. Biology is not my forte, but I think I have at least a modest understanding of it.

 

Frankly, I like science a whole lot and I am troubled by the large amount of people who feel threatened by it for some reason. AronRa is someone who really doesn't like nationalism. As a long hair liberal living in Texas, I can understand his point of view. However, I am proud of my country and what it's accomplished. But I am also dismayed and embarrassed by the decrease in scientific literacy.

 

I doubt I'm going to change anyone's mind on a board like this one, but you have my assurances that I am neither here to stroke my own ego nor am I doggedly stubborn to a belief or principle. Please consider the idea that you can still be religious without denying fundamental principles of science and that no one is going to punish you for using your intellect.

 

An interesting note is that I am actually quite conservative and right leaning and outside of the topics of religion and science, you and I might agree on a lot of things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just noticed you're from Sacramento. I was born and raised just down the road in Vallejo.

 

Welcome again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess it is a few posts late for an introductary thread, but here it is! I'm a Computer Engineering major entering my senior year. Biology is not my forte, but I think I have at least a modest understanding of it.

 

Frankly, I like science a whole lot and I am troubled by the large amount of people who feel threatened by it for some reason. AronRa is someone who really doesn't like nationalism. As a long hair liberal living in Texas, I can understand his point of view. However, I am proud of my country and what it's accomplished. But I am also dismayed and embarrassed by the decrease in scientific literacy.

 

I doubt I'm going to change anyone's mind on a board like this one, but you have my assurances that I am neither here to stroke my own ego nor am I doggedly stubborn to a belief or principle. Please consider the idea that you can still be religious without denying fundamental principles of science and that no one is going to punish you for using your intellect.

 

An interesting note is that I am actually quite conservative and right leaning and outside of the topics of religion and science, you and I might agree on a lot of things.

 

Out of the box and you assume that we here believe that we cannot be religious and scientifically literate at the same time.... Gee thanks.. However I do bid you welcome, and perhaps we can help to break these preconceived notions you have about people who are religious.

 

I too am concerned about the lack of science literacy, however I see the problem as stemming from the evolutionist's attempt to make story-telling equate to science. As you may have seen in Enoch's post #45 here.. http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum//index.php?showtopic=6237&page=3

 

Enoch has demonstrated how assumption-based science, such as evolution, contradicts the scientific method and thus cannot be considered scientific... Perhaps a case could be made for deducing the past using logic as "logical" however in terms of being science, the scientific method is king. Otherwise if we can claim things that defy the scientific method can be scientific, couldn't this also apply to religion and God?.... If its good for one, then its good for another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... I guess it is a few posts late for an introductary thread, but here it is! I'm a Computer Engineering major entering my senior year. Biology is not my forte, but I think I have at least a modest understanding of it. ...

Welcome again.

 

I once worked in a "software laboratory" of 2000 people--Computer Scientists/Engineers and others--for about six years. Nearly thirty years later, having interacted with Lawyers, Doctors, Accountants, Psychiatrists, Politicians, Entrepreneurs, and others, I have concluded that the those in the Software field might be the brightest I've encountered. I admit that I have not spent much time with Scientists in any of the traditional scientific fields outside of a classroom.

 

I convey this to make the larger point that those of us in this forum who don't possess detailed familiarity with biology, for example, can make sound arguments for or against the tenets of the theories discussed on this forum, provided we employ the relevant terms properly; and you'll find that doing this and evaluating how others do it occupies much of the content of the posts.

 

There are many posts and threads dedicated to biological details and I find that they, very often, turn to--if only temporarily--fundamental definitions and establishment of assumptions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not really that into writing software, that's why I am in computer engineering. I agree that you do not have to be a biologist to be scientifically literate.

 

Out of the box and you assume that we here believe that we cannot be religious and scientifically literate at the same time.... Gee thanks.. However I do bid you welcome, and perhaps we can help to break these preconceived notions you have about people who are religious.

I actually said the exact opposite. There are many biologists who identify as religious without being creationists.

I too am concerned about the lack of science literacy, however I see the problem as stemming from the evolutionist's attempt to make story-telling equate to science. As you may have seen in Enoch's post #45 here.. http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum//index.php?showtopic=6237&page=3
I am afraid you have it backwards. Creationists are the ones that use story telling. Evolution, the big bang, gravity, etc, these are all have predictive utility, meaning that they can be used to create accurate predictions of things we have not yet discovered that are later confirmed to be true.
Enoch has demonstrated how assumption-based science, such as evolution, contradicts the scientific method and thus cannot be considered scientific... Perhaps a case could be made for deducing the past using logic as "logical" however in terms of being science, the scientific method is king. Otherwise if we can claim things that defy the scientific method can be scientific, couldn't this also apply to religion and God?.... If its good for one, then its good for another.

I already responded to Enoch's post and I do not wish to do so again in this thread. But I will repeat that a scientific theory is no good if it does not provide some sort of use. Why keep using it if it doesn't work? And how would all of these scientists from different organizations around the world collude together to make their apparently false conclusions all coincide with each other? It sounds like a lot of work!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually said the exact opposite. There are many biologists who identify as religious without being creationists.

 

Care to elucidate where you actually said this?

 

I am afraid you have it backwards. Creationists are the ones that use story telling. Evolution, the big bang, gravity, etc, these are all have predictive utility, meaning that they can be used to create accurate predictions of things we have not yet discovered that are later confirmed to be true.

 

Could you provide some examples of these predictions? If you cannot would this mean I was correct on the story-telling aspect of evolutionist "science"...

 

I already responded to Enoch's post and I do not wish to do so again in this thread. But I will repeat that a scientific theory is no good if it does not provide some sort of use. Why keep using it if it doesn't work? And how would all of these scientists from different organizations around the world collude together to make their apparently false conclusions all coincide with each other? It sounds like a lot of work!

 

So what use is evolutionary "theory"?

 

How does believing we came from bacteria have any form of practical application?

 

 

(And before you start giving examples of genetics or biochemistry, I am asking for uses which pertain ONLY to evolution... piggy-backing on genetics and claiming its a discovery of evolution is intellectually dishonest).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not really that into writing software, that's why I am in computer engineering. I agree that you do not have to be a biologist to be scientifically literate.

 

Strange comment, that's like saying I don't like driving, that's why I'm a NASCAR racer. Just curious why you said this, I realize this is off-topic but I do have certain privileges around here. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strange comment, that's like saying I don't like driving, that's why I'm a NASCAR racer. ...

One might consider the Computer Engineer to be the mechanic: there is a wide divide between the hardware and software sides of the computer industry.

 

The analogy of driving does not compute....precisely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One might consider the Computer Engineer to be the mechanic: there is a wide divide between the hardware and software sides of the computer industry.

 

The analogy of driving does not compute....precisely.

 

Yes, but virtually every computer (or hardware) engineer I know has to write "software" of some kind (e.g. HDL). Again, I'm just curious, there is probably something about the field he is in where there is little or no software to write.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, computer engineering does include a lot of the same OS programing classes as the computer science, but they go much further. They cover things such as graphic design and software development. I have gotten some enjoyment out of learning hardware scripting such as Verilog, my preference is in network administration and IT support. I even have been learning how to maintain video game consoles. I have started a new series on my channel dissecting them. I should have the NES video out around Christmas if I can get myself to sit down and do it.

 

 

I doubt I'm going to change anyone's mind on a board like this one, but you have my assurances that I am neither here to stroke my own ego nor am I doggedly stubborn to a belief or principle. Please consider the idea that you can still be religious without denying fundamental principles of science and that no one is going to punish you for using your intellect.

 

 

Care to elucidate where you actually said this?

I put the original quote right above this one. It is from my original post that started this thread.

 

Could you provide some examples of these predictions? If you cannot would this mean I was correct on the story-telling aspect of evolutionist "science"...

One of the predictions I posted in another thread was regarding the prediction that a pair of human chromosomes would be the result of the fusion of two other pairs of chromosomes. This prediction was in based on the observation that every other extant member of the Hominidae one more pair of chromosomes than we do. This was confirmed.

 

So what use is evolutionary "theory"?

You mean besides nothing in Biology making sense without it? Or the countless medical advances based on evolutionary principles?

 

How does believing we came from bacteria have any form of practical application?

It doesn't because no one who understands evolution believes that.

 

(And before you start giving examples of genetics or biochemistry, I am asking for uses which pertain ONLY to evolution... piggy-backing on genetics and claiming its a discovery of evolution is intellectually dishonest).

See? There go those goalposts again. You can't explain evolution without genetics or biochemistry. Evolution is the change in allele frequencies in a population over time. How can I talk about changing allele frequencies without alleles? It is nonsensical to try to talk about evolution without genetics. Hell, even the discovery of D.N.A. was predicted based on the knowledge of evolution. It was the proposed mechanism for understanding inherited traits. This is why creationists move the goalposts. They set them up in a way that they think will be too far for us to reach, but when we prove that they aren't far enough, they retort with "That doesn't prove anything!" and change their standards of proof eventually arriving at an unreasonable standard of evidence requiring either knowing more than what is currently been discovered or using restrictions that would make it impossible to answer to your satisfaction. This is why I believe wholeheartedly that any creationist who tries to argue for creationism already knows they are wrong.

I'm curious, gilbo, why you ignored my question about how and why a massive global collusion of scientists would exist to present evolution as fact when it's not? It seems like an impossible conspiracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm curious, gilbo, why you ignored my question about how and why a massive global collusion of scientists would exist to present evolution as fact when it's not? It seems like an impossible conspiracy.

 

Due to the unconditional commitment to naturalism:

 

Our willingness to accept scientific claims against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs..., in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to naturalism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door (Richard Lewontin. 1997, p. 31, 2nd and 4th emp. in orig.)

 

This means that, even if creation was true, these people will not accept it and would prefer a naturalistic explanation even if such explanation is wrong. They would regularly work on the explanation to make it fit into the current observable data, rewriting their stories and trying desperately to support their hypotheses which is exactly what is happening now. Back then, science was the tool used to find truth; but today, science is naturalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That does not answer my question. How could repeated independent tests around the world show the same results if they weren't accurate? It is quite improbable that they could all be manipulating their results to match each other. And why would anyone study biology if it meant that to enter the field they would have to learn how to hide facts and evidence in a convoluted effort to confirm "popular opinion?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That does not answer my question. How could repeated independent tests around the world show the same results if they weren't accurate? It is quite improbable that they could all be manipulating their results to match each other. And why would anyone study biology if it meant that to enter the field they would have to learn how to hide facts and evidence in a convoluted effort to confirm "popular opinion?"

 

I never said anything about evolutionists "manipulating their results to mach each other" or "hiding facts to confirm popular opinion", although this has been done numerous of times before (see: Ernst Haeckel's fraudulent drawings, Archaeoraptor, The Piltdown Man, etc) but what I'm saying is that evolutionists are not willing to examine any evidence contrary to the naturalistic position due to their commitment to naturalism. For evolutionists, "evolution is a fact" because it is the only possible naturalistic solution for them in the meantime, even if it's actually incorrect.

 

Please note however that Darwinian evolution doesn't depend on "repeated independent tests around the world", but depends on mere assumptions that cannot be proven under laboratories due to the "billions of years" paradigm.

 

And why would anyone study biology if it meant that to enter the field they would have to learn how to hide facts and evidence in a convoluted effort to confirm "popular opinion?"

 

For me, I study biology because I want to learn more about how living organisms operate; but of course, some people prefer to be dishonest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I put the original quote right above this one. It is from my original post that started this thread.

 

You didn't mention anything about Biologists identifying as Creationists in your OP... Perhaps you can provide a quote of what you think demonstrates that you said that..

 

 

One of the predictions I posted in another thread was regarding the prediction that a pair of human chromosomes would be the result of the fusion of two other pairs of chromosomes. This prediction was in based on the observation that every other extant member of the Hominidae one more pair of chromosomes than we do. This was confirmed.

 

Who PREDICTED this BEFORE it was identified?

 

Finding something which you can then create a story for to fit a particular paradigm or worldview is NOT a prediction...

 

 

You mean besides nothing in Biology making sense without it? Or the countless medical advances based on evolutionary principles?

 

Biology existed long before evolution.... So it seems that claim is nonsense.

 

Perhaps provide one medical advance which is based SOLELY on evolution... No piggybacking on legitimate medical science.

 

 

It doesn't because no one who understands evolution believes that.

 

So you admit that evolution has no use, great :) You are starting to learn...

 

However its a bit sad that you cannot consider thinking outside the box...

 

Evolution theory claims that multicellular life "evolved" from bacteria

Humans are mult-cellular life

Ergo humans evolved from bacteria.. smashfreak.gif

 

 

 

 

See? There go those goalposts again.

 

What goal posts? You said a theory must have some form of use, I asked you for the use of evolution. However I did so asking you to not piggy-back off of legitimate science.

 

I am asking for the use of evolution ONLY.... If you state something related to genetics then that is a use of genetics not of evolution.

 

 

You can't explain evolution without genetics or biochemistry.

 

It seems you've forgotten the question... I wasn't asking for an explanation of evolution, rather I am asking for the uses of it... Therefore there is no need to "borrow" from legitimate science, just demonstrate the uses evolution has and what we have discovered from it.

 

According to my own research on this the only uses evolution has are...

 

- to help atheists feel "intellectually satisfied" (hence emotional attachment to the "theory")

- give a Godless explanation of life

 

That is it... No new technologies, no discoveries.. well except for creating "trees of life" but they are only used to reinforce the evolution myth, so these aren't useful developments.

 

 

Evolution is the change in allele frequencies in a population over time. How can I talk about changing allele frequencies without alleles? It is nonsensical to try to talk about evolution without genetics.

 

 

Again you've forgotten the question...

 

However I am curious as to this "changes in allele frequency", so if a population changes the % of hair alleles does that mean they "evolved"? Also how could such a change lead to the large-scale structural changes Darwin claims in his book?... Can changing hair colour turn an ape-like organism to a human?.... Or perhaps evolution is much more than what you are claiming here...

 

 

Hell, even the discovery of D.N.A. was predicted based on the knowledge of evolution. It was the proposed mechanism for understanding inherited traits.

 

I'd very much like to see the evidence for this PREdiction...

 

It was the proposed mechanism for understanding inherited traits.

 

So how can it be a prediction when Inheritance was known long before Darwin...

 

 

This is why creationists move the goalposts. They set them up in a way that they think will be too far for us to reach, but when we prove that they aren't far enough, they retort with "That doesn't prove anything!" and change their standards of proof eventually arriving at an unreasonable standard of evidence requiring either knowing more than what is currently been discovered or using restrictions that would make it impossible to answer to your satisfaction.

 

You've lost me... Where has anyone claimed "that doesn't prove anything" because you have it here in quotation marks so apparently you are quoting someone here...

 

Who changed the goal posts again? All I did was ask a question and provide the goalposts for said question... IF anything YOU are the one attempting to change the goal posts I set for my question because you know there is no uses for evolution, without "borrowing" from legitimate science.

 

I'm curious, gilbo, why you ignored my question about how and why a massive global collusion of scientists would exist to present evolution as fact when it's not? It seems like an impossible conspiracy.

 

Well firstly you've just proven their folly... In scientific theory there are no facts since that would destroy the plasticity of science to incorporate new data... IF you claim something is a fact, and thus absolute, you are declaring that no matter what new evidence is found this thing will always be true... Hence the new evidence that is found must be interpreted to fit within this context... Hence you are deluding yourself.

 

I assume that the same has occured to many scientists across the world, they have an idea of evolution being a fact and then interpret the data in order to fit this worldview.

 

Some scientists have woken up to this idiocy, lets hope more do so in the future... However I wonder why you attempt to use an argument to popularity / argument to authority... Didn't you know these are logical fallacies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but virtually every computer (or hardware) engineer I know has to write "software" of some kind (e.g. HDL). Again, I'm just curious, there is probably something about the field he is in where there is little or no software to write.

When I was a "Computer Science" major, in the early '70's, it was a degree in Electronics Engineering with a specialty in computer design and programming. Mostly design. In class, I would be taking CS321 while the person sitting next to me was in EE582 then the next hour, I'd be in EE351 and he'd be in CS543. Now, Computer Science is pretty much programming only. (Which explains why I now describe my major as EE rather than CS. Today it's a more accurate description.)

 

Anyway, hardware design would probably involve minimal code writing to this day. Now, he may need to use CAD/CAM programs, but that's different from writing them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back then, science was the tool used to find truth; but today, science is naturalism.

We call them "natural" and "physical" sciences for a reason. Science is still the tool used to find the truth .... about how the natural and physical world works.

 

There are no supernatural tests or methods available to science. Therefore, science is not properly qualified to deal with that which is beyond nature.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny... First, you say:

 

I doubt I'm going to change anyone's mind on a board like this one, but you have my assurances that I am neither here to stroke my own ego nor am I doggedly stubborn to a belief or principle.

 

But then you say:

Please consider the idea that you can still be religious without denying fundamental principles of science and that no one is going to punish you for using your intellect.

 

Telling this to creationists is definition of being "stroke with your own ego and doggedly stubborn to a belief or principle". dry.png
Many of us here have points and merits from academia within our own specified fields (most of which are "natural" sciences). So please stop with this mantra that we, "religulous fowks" don't know what scientific method is.
But how about you taste some of your own medicine, hmm? What if I tell you this: please consider that you can still be scientific without denying the existence of supernatural, and its influence on people's everyday lives, and that no one is going to punish you using your intellect.

One of the predictions I posted in another thread was regarding the prediction that a pair of human chromosomes would be the result of the fusion of two other pairs of chromosomes. This prediction was in based on the observation that every other extant member of the Hominidae one more pair of chromosomes than we do. This was confirmed.

This is like predicting "If I go Rome, I predict to find a new remnant of the Roman Empire there. Something no one has found before." Wow, what a prediction.

You mean besides nothing in Biology making sense without it? Or the countless medical advances based on evolutionary principles?

This is just flat out false. If you take some courses in cellular biology you will quickly realize that "intelligent design" argument (whether it be God or extraterrestrials) holds a lot more ground than theory of evolution, solely based on what goes on in the cell. Researchers can't even describe certain processes without using words and terms that undoubtedly lean towards ID as a better explanation.

Or the countless medical advances based on evolutionary principles?

The advances you speak of are made thanks to biochemistry, physics, and genetics. Otherwise, I would like you to provide an example of such "advances" based only on evolutionary principles (or having evolutionary principles as their main "breakthrough thing").

It doesn't because no one who understands evolution believes that.

No true Scotsman fallacy. Also, one of my biology teachers in high school, the one who took classes at a university and got an MS degree in Biology from within academia, believed that. She was an evolutionist. Your argument is both false and a fallacy.

See? There go those goalposts again. You can't explain evolution without genetics or biochemistry.

Then why can you explain genetics and biochemistry without evolution? Is this not a major red flag for pseudo-science, the fact that it can't even stand its own ground without heavily relying on theories and tests from other fields to use as its back-up?

Evolution is the change in allele frequencies in a population over time. How can I talk about changing allele frequencies without alleles?

But you can talk about alleles without talking about change in allele frequences. How about that?

It is nonsensical to try to talk about evolution without genetics.

Then why is it sensical to talk about genetics without evolution?

Hell, even the discovery of D.N.A. was predicted based on the knowledge of evolution. It was the proposed mechanism for understanding inherited traits.

No. This is wrong. The fact that you inherit your traits from your parents was known already during the middle-ages. When people couldn't even read... It was believed that traits were passed on via blood. Which is interesting, because it's partially true! You have your DNA in your blood cells, the same DNA that you pass on to your children. So, no. Findings of DNA was simply an "adjustment" to the "traits via blood" theory. Had nothing to do with evolution.

This is why creationists move the goalposts. They set them up in a way that they think will be too far for us to reach, but when we prove that they aren't far enough, they retort with "That doesn't prove anything!"

 

Because most of the time, it doesn't. If I say "yesterday, I ate pizza, and my proof of this is a stone in my hand. There, I have proven to you that I ate pizza by showing a stone in my hand.", would you say that I have "prooved" anything? Well, I have prooved that I hold a stone in my hand, but other than that, I haven't prooved anything. So...

 

and change their standards of proof eventually arriving at an unreasonable standard of evidence requiring either knowing more than what is currently been discovered or using restrictions that would make it impossible to answer to your satisfaction.

Maybe you've just had some bad luck in your previous encounters with creationists? Most of us here on EFF are a reasonable bunch. Both atheists and Christians (yea, yea, yea, agnostics are reasonable too). That's why I like this forum so much.

This is why I believe wholeheartedly that any creationist who tries to argue for creationism already knows they are wrong.

you have my assurances that I am neither here to stroke my own ego nor am I doggedly stubborn to a belief or principle.

Aha, mhm, mhm...

 

I'm curious, gilbo, why you ignored my question

I won't...

about how and why a massive global collusion of scientists would exist to present evolution as fact when it's not? It seems like an impossible conspiracy.

No, it's not. Let me explain.
Imagine that Hitler won the war. Imagine that the entire world today bowed to nazi regime. Don't you think eugenics would be presented as "legitimate" science everywhere? Don't you think that scientists would "pile up" evidence for eugenics to left and right? Don't you think that eugenics would be taught in schools to children, and at universities to adults? That respected scientists would hold public speaches, wearing suits, thanking Hitler for his "great discovery that helped to improve our world"?
It's true, Hitler did not win the war. But his puppeteer did... Satan. Presidents, generals, highly ranked commitee members and principles at major universities are satanists. They worship baphomet. In the daylight, the wear suits, and show no signs of such a behavior. But during certain days of the year, they gather around in the woods at night and drink blood during their sick satanic rituals.
ToE is presented everywhere today as a "fact" because Satan knows that belief in evolution would slowly-but-securely push a person away from their faith in Jesus. Off course, there are exceptions, such as piasan. But for the most part, this is true. And since the world is run by satanists, anything that contradicts what Satan wants will be dealt with. Anyone who seriously commits themselves to prooving theory of evolution wrong on a massive international scale is not going to have an easy time doing so, to say the least.

 

 

Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....

It's true, Hitler did not win the war. But his puppeteer did... Satan. Presidents, generals, highly ranked commitee members and principles at major universities are satanists. They worship baphomet. In the daylight, the wear suits, and show no signs of such a behavior. But during certain days of the year, they gather around in the woods at night and drink blood during their sick satanic rituals. ...

I now know who is next on my ignore list and I have grave regret that I spent any time responding to any of his posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I now know who is next on my ignore list and I have grave regret that I spent any time responding to any of his posts.

It's your choice to continue on in your own ignorance.

 

 

Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We call them "natural" and "physical" sciences for a reason. Science is still the tool used to find the truth .... about how the natural and physical world works.

 

There are no supernatural tests or methods available to science. Therefore, science is not properly qualified to deal with that which is beyond nature.

 

I agree with you, but I meant to target the "scientific community", not the scientific method or how science actually works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms