 
Support Wrong Planet Awareness!
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
monty
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 05, 2007
Posts: 1705
|
 Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 10:01 am Post subject: Re: Evolution vs. Creation- serious discussion only please |
 |
|
| Orwell wrote: | | OK, so we've had a lot of conflict on this board recently over evolution and creationism/ID. |
Yes - why is that? Three or four people have cognitive problems with evolution, and they spend a lot of effort to turn it into everyones problem.
I have a problem with the theory of gravity. Consider this observation, which destroys the entire 'paradigm' of gravity that has trapped most people's mind: water does not flow down hill; it flows towards money. If water has to go up and over a bunch of mountains to get to money, it will do so. I have seen this occur frequently in California and other places - the drier an area is, the easier it is to disprove this 'theory' of 'gravity'.
Further considerations: the symbol of the gravitite movement is the apple, as Sir Isaac Newton was said to be inspired by a 'falling' apple. Adam and Eve 'fell' after eating an apple. Today, as our society disintegrates, Apple computer sees it stock try to shoot up towards heaven as it promotes its anti-God logo, which is the apple Eve ate from. This is surely the mark of the beast.
Let us be honest: inanimate objects do not really fall - they move towards power (evil, money, etc). Sometimes they move towards the power in the underworld; sometimes there are accumulations of evil above the ground (Los Angeles).
I am willing to spend hundreds of hours of our time to convince you of this. And you, being a person of good character, must be courteous to me. Let's try to come to a concensus. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Orwell
Outer Party Member
Joined: Aug 09, 2007
Age: 18
Posts: 2582
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 10:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Monty- I do not want to mock creationists here. I want to see what evidence they can give for their hypothesis, or against evolution. So far I haven't seen any takers to this challenge, so I'm going to leave this thread alone and I suggest you do the same. I'll bump it every few days, and if there are no serious challenges for about a month, I will consider ID to have lost the debate on this board.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH |
|
| Back to top |
|
Izaak
Squeeky Bathtime Companion
Joined: Jun 11, 2007
Posts: 1151
Location: Perth, Western Australia
|
| Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 12:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
One can not use reason and logic against those who have forsaken its use. The proper purpose of any debate with such a person is to forewarn those who would not know any better.
The philosophical error all those who debate Iamnotaparakeet and Ragtime is that by employing logic and reason and pretending that they are doing the same by continued argument is to assert that they are debating on a rational level. Which neither of them are doing. By continuing debate you are giving them intellectual credentials which neither of them posses in this debate. They NEED you, who support evolution, to attempt to debate them as equals to establish their credentials in this debate.
To repeat. You can outline exactly why they are wrong. But if you accept their premises.. that is all they need. No matter how much you argue, they have won. Because there goal isn't to establish creationism as fact., it is to attempt to give the respect that is afforded genuine science to the ID movement. And by arguing against it continually what you are saying to the world is that all creationism is is a differing viewpoint. Which it isn't. It's childish poppycock that would be dismissed if anyone were to take even a cursory glance at reality. So don't give it the benefit of the doubt. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Orwell
Outer Party Member
Joined: Aug 09, 2007
Age: 18
Posts: 2582
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 12:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Izaak, frankly I agree with you. But I also wanted to demonstrate all the more convincingly that ID has no basis in reality to support it. This is best done by giving them at least some chance to debate on a level playing field, and watching them fail to produce any convincing evidence for their side whatsoever. Otherwise they, like Ben Stein in his movie Expelled, will claim to be the victims of oppression and, as Ragtime already has repeatedly, assert the existence of some vast anti-Christian conspiracy to discredit ID.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH |
|
| Back to top |
|
Izaak
Squeeky Bathtime Companion
Joined: Jun 11, 2007
Posts: 1151
Location: Perth, Western Australia
|
| Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 12:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Orwell wrote: | | Monty- I do not want to mock creationists here. I want to see what evidence they can give for their hypothesis, or against evolution. So far I haven't seen any takers to this challenge, so I'm going to leave this thread alone and I suggest you do the same. I'll bump it every few days, and if there are no serious challenges for about a month, I will consider ID to have lost the debate on this board. |
One should never mock anybody. I may not agree with what a creationist has to say, but they deserve to be able to say it. After they say it, feel free to refute it. But one should be sure to never accept their premises.
Rightly Creationism is pure make believe which any person who takes even a cursory glance at reality would dismiss. But one should never do it out of hand. Instead of debating the creationist (which is a waste of time because they have already given up their rational faculty), one should outline exactly why it is wrong. Not for the creationist themselves, they are a waste of time. But for the person who does not know any better. The mind that is not already lost. For they are the person that needs convincing that Creationism is indeed make believe. And evolution is the theory that corresponds best to reality. For that is the truth.
By debating the creationist you establish credentials which they have no right to claim except that which you give them. DON'T DO IT. And not just you Orwell, all those who debate creationists. Don't do it. Your target audience should be the people that haven't made judgment yet. Those that have and have picked the wrong side are probably wasted anyhow. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Izaak
Squeeky Bathtime Companion
Joined: Jun 11, 2007
Posts: 1151
Location: Perth, Western Australia
|
| Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 1:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Orwell wrote: | | Izaak, frankly I agree with you. But I also wanted to demonstrate all the more convincingly that ID has no basis in reality to support it. This is best done by giving them at least some chance to debate on a level playing field, and watching them fail to produce any convincing evidence for their side whatsoever. Otherwise they, like Ben Stein in his movie Expelled, will claim to be the victims of oppression and, as Ragtime already has repeatedly, assert the existence of some vast anti-Christian conspiracy to discredit ID. |
They have the chance to present logical and reasonable arguments at every single tick of the clock. You don't have to be mean or vindictive. But you must not concede any points about giving them a rational leg to stand on until such a time as they come forward with logical and reasonable arguments in order to claim that leg. Until such times, conceding them a level playing field on the basis of logic debate is to give up the entire debate. As I outlined... they don't want to win... they just need your concession. By you conceding that level playing field you put doubts into the mind of those who have not looked at either side. You the scientist that KNOWS the truth because you have looked at reality confer to your opposition at least a part of that respect (in the minds of those who have not looked at it at all) because you have given your opposition that leg to stand on. It is only by YOUR concession that they have that leg... All I am simply saying is give them the chance to put forward a rational argument. But let them do it on their own merits, not yours. Because they don't want to convince YOU. They want to get your concession so they can convince themselves and others. Because they know YOU already subscribe to reality. As far as they are concerned you are a lost cause.
For evidence carefully look through and read what Iamnotaparakeet and ragtime have actually said. And don't sugar coat it... in your best imitation of an aspie read their words for what they ACTUALLY SAY. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Orwell
Outer Party Member
Joined: Aug 09, 2007
Age: 18
Posts: 2582
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 1:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, their refusal even to step onto the level playing field I tried to provide seems to support the hypothesis that they would be destroyed in an even debate on the factual evidence. Why not come into the debate unless they know they would lose?
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH |
|
| Back to top |
|
Izaak
Squeeky Bathtime Companion
Joined: Jun 11, 2007
Posts: 1151
Location: Perth, Western Australia
|
| Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 1:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Orwell wrote: | | Well, their refusal even to step onto the level playing field I tried to provide seems to support the hypothesis that they would be destroyed in an even debate on the factual evidence. Why not come into the debate unless they know they would lose? |
whoa! way too many negatives in that sentence for me to understand the properly.. can you rephrase? |
|
| Back to top |
|
Orwell
Outer Party Member
Joined: Aug 09, 2007
Age: 18
Posts: 2582
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 1:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Izaak wrote: | | Orwell wrote: | | Well, their refusal even to step onto the level playing field I tried to provide seems to support the hypothesis that they would be destroyed in an even debate on the factual evidence. Why not come into the debate unless they know they would lose? |
whoa! way too many negatives in that sentence for me to understand the properly.. can you rephrase? |
If ID proponents had any confidence that they would be able to hold their own in a debate over the facts of evolution vs creationism, they would debate on this thread. I offered a level playing field, which is really more than they can ask for. The fact that they refuse to address these issues indicates that they have nothing to support their views.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH |
|
| Back to top |
|
Izaak
Squeeky Bathtime Companion
Joined: Jun 11, 2007
Posts: 1151
Location: Perth, Western Australia
|
| Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 1:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Orwell wrote: | | Izaak wrote: | | Orwell wrote: | | Well, their refusal even to step onto the level playing field I tried to provide seems to support the hypothesis that they would be destroyed in an even debate on the factual evidence. Why not come into the debate unless they know they would lose? |
whoa! way too many negatives in that sentence for me to understand the properly.. can you rephrase? |
If ID proponents had any confidence that they would be able to hold their own in a debate over the facts of evolution vs creationism, they would debate on this thread. I offered a level playing field, which is really more than they can ask for. The fact that they refuse to address these issues indicates that they have nothing to support their views. |
As I said, their purpose isn't to convince YOU that they are correct. But to get YOU to concede that level playing field. To get YOU to concede that THEY have something rational to offer. To get YOU to say that they are WORTHY of debate.
Because it isn't YOU that they are trying to convince. Primarily it is themselves. Secondarily it is anyone that has any doubt whatsoever. but You (a person of at least some association with a scientific view point) saying that a person with no rational basis for their views whatsoever has a respect they don't deserve, it elevates Creationism to a level that IT doesn't deserve.
So to repeat. They aren't out to prove that creationism is true. They are just out to get you to concede that it is an issue worth debating. Because debate makes it seems as if there is an issue open to debate in order to reach a conclusion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Gromit
Velociraptor
![]()
Joined: May 20, 2006
Posts: 460
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 2:31 pm Post subject: Re: Evolution vs. Creation- serious discussion only please |
|
|
| Orwell wrote: | | 1. Present any empirical evidence you know of that supports your views. Explain why it supports your views in well-reasoned terms. |
I'd like to divide that up into what must be true if the theory is true, and what can't be true if the theory is true. "Must be true" means that if the prediction is not true, that would be convincing evidence that the theory is false. "Can't be true" means that if one finds what the theory says should not happen, that would be convincing evidence that the theory is false. I'll also distinguish between the necessary predictions of a theory and points on which a theory is neutral, which it may explain if they happen, but can't predict.
A necessary prediction of evolution is that if you construct cladograms (you reconstruct the family tree) from data which, as far you you know the biology should be independent except by common descent, you get statistically significant correlations. The more data you use, the less random disagreement there should be. Examples of suitable independent data sources are non-functional genes, endogenous retroviruses, morphology (if you compare morphology to the genes that control development you can only have partial independence, but neither will you have a one to one relationship, because there are different ways to create the same body shape and small differences in developmental genes can make a big difference to body shape), stereotyped behaviours, the cladograms of specialized parasites and their hosts.
If the data sets are independent except by common descent, they should not agree perfectly, exactly because changes in each trait are independent. Common descent should still create a statistical relationship, which should (again on average) become stronger the more data you have.
Creationists explain this by saying the designer used a hierarchy of common blueprints. That is not a necessary prediction of any variant of creationist theory I know, because a designer might have mixed alternative solutions to the same problem in a way different than the one predicted by evolution. The common blueprints explanation is therefore only a post-hoc explanation, not a prediction.
The evolutionary prediction is a prediction. It applies to new species. There is an estimate that only about 10% of all species have yet been discovered and described, so there is plenty of opportunity to test the prediction. If suddenly species were to turn up not showing the pattern of correlations, creationists could say the designer chose not to use the hierarchy of common blueprints, but evolution would be in trouble. That makes evolution the more specific and therefore more easily falsified theory. It is the stronger scientific theory.
Some ID proponents have started talking about "front loading", the notion that the designer included genetic information in organisms long before their descendants started using it. The concept is very elastic, and it is therefore important to distinguish versions that merely put an ID label on known evolutionary processes from those versions whose confirmation would be evidence against evolution.
A version of front loading inconsistent with evolutionary theory is that all the developmental blueprints for multicellular life were already present in the genome of the last common unicellular ancestor to all multicellular life. The claim is that the developmental programmes did not themselves evolve, but that they inserted, in a completely functional form, by the designer, and later apparent evolution was merely selecting from the menu of existing options. If that were true at the level claimed, evolution would be in serious trouble. One important point here is the level at which this is claimed to happen. By "at the level claimed" I mean we are not talking about co-option of existing genes for new functions (that is part of evolutionary theory) but picking one of several completely functional, yet distinct developmental programmes as different as the ones making fungi rather than green plants, or arthropods rather than molluscs, or insects rather than spiders, with all of these programmes present before there was any multicellular life.
Although high level front loading is pushed by some ID proponents, the concept again shows evolution to be the stronger theory. I have never heard of any evolutionary mechanism that could produce high level front loading as I described it. But for ID, front loading is optional, and not all ID proponents believe in it. Some believe the designer intervened to change the developmental programme either at all major points of divergence, or even at every single speciation event. This is obviously inconsistent with high level front loading, because that says all major developmental programmes were inserted by the designer before they were needed. There are no constraints on what the designer is supposed to have done. ID can therefore have it any way it likes, but that is a weakness, not a strength. A theory that is consistent with any finding can't make any prediction. Anything could be true, so no possibility can be selected. If a theory makes no prediction what must be true and what can't be true, it is useless.
The elasticity of the idea of front loading is also problematic. A known process in the evolution of development is changing the time at which existing genes are expressed. I have already seen that claimed as an example of front loading, when it is merely a relabeling. If that relabeling in uncritically accepted, by generalizing to the high level front loading inconsistent with evolution ID proponents could then claim to have evidence against evolution. That would seem plausible to anyone who doesn't know what biological details to look at. That's why it is important to ask just what information is supposed to have been inserted by the designer before it was needed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Orwell
Outer Party Member
Joined: Aug 09, 2007
Age: 18
Posts: 2582
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 4:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Those are some interesting points, Gromit. What are some things you think creationism might predict? If we find something specific that they will predict, than we will have evidence for or against their claims. Evolution has made numerous predictions that have been proven true.
iamnotaparakeet...
Ragtime...
You both regularly frequent this forum. I know you've seen this thread. Are you willing to debate on even terms, with no flaming? Or will you concede that ID has no basis in fact?
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH |
|
| Back to top |
|
Sedaka
Searching For My Catcher in the Rye
Joined: Jul 17, 2006
Age: 26
Posts: 4931
Location: In the recesses of my mind
|
| Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 4:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Orwell wrote: | | Ah, I just found this. So, contrary to ID claims, speciation has been observed in the lab, primarily in drosophila. It is no longer possible to realistically claim that evolution as a whole is false. However, iamnotaparakeet, the principle detractor from evolution here, has stated his support for speciation. I'm not quite sure what evolution he still opposes, though, aside from comments he's made about abiogenesis and Miller/Urey. I would prefer not to get into a debate over the ultimate origin of life, as this is not something that evolutionary theory deals with. Evolution only discusses how life changes over time, not how it originated. |
i think iamnotaparakeet is willing to believe things like frogs can speciate (lol is that a word) into more frog species ect... but i think he has issues with the common descent of all organisms... hence his refusal to accept proposed cladograms and porposed mechanisms of homoplasy and homolgy
im not sure though... wish he would elaborate
_________________
Never has there been more to say; less to do, before you turned away. ~Hot Chip |
|
| Back to top |
|
Sedaka
Searching For My Catcher in the Rye
Joined: Jul 17, 2006
Age: 26
Posts: 4931
Location: In the recesses of my mind
|
| Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 4:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| iamnotaparakeet wrote: | | Amazing, a hypothesis is falsifiable but it isn't "science" because of its origin. How does this definition of "science" compare to Sir Karl Popper's? |
creationism USED to be considered a science.... until all the evidence came back negative (ie-not getting any positive results)
same reason phrenology is no longer considered a science.
if you could posit some scientific evidence in favor of it.... you might be on to something.
_________________
Never has there been more to say; less to do, before you turned away. ~Hot Chip |
|
| Back to top |
|
Orwell
Outer Party Member
Joined: Aug 09, 2007
Age: 18
Posts: 2582
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 5:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sedaka wrote: | i think iamnotaparakeet is willing to believe things like frogs can speciate (lol is that a word) into more frog species ect... but i think he has issues with the common descent of all organisms... hence his refusal to accept proposed cladograms and porposed mechanisms of homoplasy and homolgy
im not sure though... wish he would elaborate |
To accept speciation while rejecting common descent would seem to at least imply a rejection of uniformitarianism. I do wish he would elaborate more, so we could stop guessing as to his views.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
