September 2016

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  

Subscribe

« The Problems of Evil | Main | Do Christians Need to Read the Bible? (Video) »

August 16, 2012

Comments

Squally,

How things get off the ground seems unknown at this time. Cleary the laws of what we know now can't get us there. Thus M-Theory's early reaches going on now..... The materialist will not be stopped by Gaps, just as we won't. "Faith" in the "unproven" is there to some degree, although they won't admit it. That's the dishonest part about materialists: they call their faith science. Well, it seems more reasonable on our end, I mean on that business of getting things off the ground....

Squally,

I had this from another page, on the faith of the materialist:


Whether we speak of Faith or of Science this journey through temporal gaps and possible inconsistencies is the same: “"The Quantum behavior of elementary particles still present problems which for the moment outstrip our reason, intuition, and powers of imagination. The same is true of human consciousness; no one understands it and there is no generally agreed upon theory: in this situation for research to continue requires faith. Faith that nature’s intelligibility and order will not pitter out into unintelligibility and chaos. For all we know we may have to get our minds around an order of intelligibility far higher than any of our minds can presently grasp. Indeed one could even say that faith in something that has not yet been proved still is and always has been a prerequisite for scientific investigation. So if the Atheist thinks that Faith is irrational and delusional they will have to say that the science on which they pin all their hopes is also irrational." (John Lennox)

squallybimbadine

Why do you think all of the information provided in that link is correct? 16 of the points are demonstrably rubbish and I can debunk them if you like, referencing the necessary scientific papers. Its notable that Mr martin doesnt reference any scientific literature, but then again maybe he thinks 'evilution' is some global conspiracy against Christians that take the bible literally.

" It is the same stuff we studied in school. I still don't agree with it." Why not? Did you actually listen to what was being taught?

"All of science rests on the uniformity of nature not the randomness of nature." Not correct. Simple starting rules can create complexity exteremely quickly - e.g fractals

There's no reason why God couldn't couldn't have made mind utterly dependent upon matter, and vice-versa.

"The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the "form" of the body: i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature." CCC365, Emphasis mine.

Anyway, on to John Willis...

So what does Protestantism teach that all Protestants are required to believe about 'mind', 'body', and 'spirit', John Willis? *

I've watched Greg Koukl vs. Deepak Chopra. Greg's arguments are great.
Now try to defend Protestantism against Greg's arguments. You can't because the arguments against Chopra apply to Protestantism.

* 'Whatever was true of God 100 years ago is going to be true of God today', Greg said. If that is the case, denominationalism is impossible, because what was true 100 years ago, was true 2000 years ago - the nature of the human person, included

The Protestant has to make the 'Mormon Move' - accuse the Catholic Church of apostasy in its past - or else Protestantism shows itself as in apostasy.

For me, the clincher is that Catholicism is definitively pro-life, and if a Catholic denies it, they're automatically excommunicated (latae sententiae). Hard, but necessary as it's of primary value.

I couldn't belong to anything which left the nature of the human person, their mind, their soul, up for grabs.

Greg, Melinda, et al, belong to a form of religion that isn't 100% pro-life whilst there's one that is.

If they say life matters that much to them, yet they belong to a religion where the pro-life stance is debatable, so they must have some vested interest which trumps life, and puts it in second place to their own convenience or agenda.

Lastly, you need to look carefully at the way you ridicule and yawn at my comments whilst taking the old hackneyed tropes of atheists seriously - because you see them as a possible scalp?

Hi Mike,

If you want to bring up origins, that's OK with me too, but I was simply referring to macro-evoulutionary theory.

From your rigorous defense of the general hypothesis I was assuming you were familiar with the term and the distinction between micro and macro evolution.

Micro evolution is what you're making all this noise about with antibioitics and how it's so ironic that us knuckle dragging theists benefit from a theory we don't believe in. Things like heredity, adaptation and change within a species over time....these things are observable and I don't know any Christian who denies the micro theory.

What is at issue is the idea that species evolve from and into other species. The evidence for this idea just doesn't exist.

Regards,
John

Mike

All of science rests on the uniformity of nature because if it didn't then you wouldn't know from one day to the next if your previous experiments would remain consistent. Scientists rely on induction and when things don't turn out the way they thought based on past experience they will automatically have to assume that something had changed or wasn't consistent. Science rests on the uniformity of nature or induction.

Yes, I did actually listen to what was being taught. That's how I knew it was a joke. Gradualism is not supported by the fossil record. Stephen Gould actually admitted ToE was a philosophy and not science. You like to make references to my education being lacking somehow, but if you could refer me to something that could correct my ignorance like some proof or something believable I might go along with you. I make that offer knowing there is actually no risk of it happening, but I like to be fair.

Why do you think all of the stuff in that link is incorrect? People haven't evolved in how they sin over all these years. They are still trusting their intellect over what God has said or commanded. Adam and Eve trusted their own evaluation of the situation instead of the truth of what God said. This "theory" is no different in that people have trusted their own evaluation of the situation and not God's word. Man is a special creation of God and not the result of the evolution of a fish or monkey
or whatever.

You are convinced by the data that ToE is accurate. I think it is a fairytale for grownups. You seem to know a lot about it. What do you know of God?

Mike,

Question for you.... Why do you think it is that all of us knuckle dragging theists don't understand the ToE when we've been taught nothing else but this view in the school systems and universities BY FORCE OF LAW?

Do you ever think...maybe just maybe it's because some of us have studied what the macro theory actually claims? ....and have examined the evidence purported to support that claim and found it woefully inadequate?

Just asking.

JW

Mike,

As per my two brief clips to Squally above, the problem with the materialist is in one regard the fact that they do not concede that their science is in part all faith.

And, more importantly, you have not addressed the problem of the Majority/Minority and "illusion" vs. "real" as it relates to fluxes across lipid bilayers.

"Tell me by what mechanism masses are attracted to each other? We know more about the mechanisms of evolution than we do of gravity."

Nonsense.

There are two excellent and highly explanatory proposals for the mechanism that drives gravity:

Gravitons.

The Curvature of Space-Time.

The math used to express these theories is quite precise and unambiguous.

Now tell me what fitness is. Tell me what it is that survives by being fit.

Make it a point not to make Natural Selection tautologous through your definitions.

scbrownlhrm

It is a matter of competing faiths. The Christian worldview can make sense of the world because all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are deposited in Christ. I view reason as a tool for understanding the world around me and the scientist might see it as a God in itself. Thanks for your input. I believe we are of one accord on the subject.

John

The difference between macro and micro evolution is semantic.

"What is at issue is the idea that species evolve from and into other species. The evidence for this idea just doesn't exist."

Incorrect. That what we see in the fossil record which ties in exactly what what we see in phylogenetic analysis.

Please dont tar me with the brush about thinking theists are knuckle draggers. That really isnt fair or accurate.

"and have examined the evidence purported to support that claim and found it woefully inadequate?"

Why is it woefully inaccurare? Have you been looking at the same websites as squallybimbadine?

"Evolution is pretty much the cornerstone of biology."

Really? You don't think the molecular genetics is more fundamental?

squallybimbadine

"Why do you think all of the stuff in that link is incorrect?"

No no no squally - that isnt the way this works. They need to back up their asserytions rigorously. They havent. I find it incredible that you read something on the internet and believe it just because it has some element of religious to it.
In any case, those arguments are simply untrue. Dont research them online - go to a library and read up in some encyclopedias or science books. Prefereably ones written by people who arent looking to assert that the bible is literally true at every turn.


"Man is a special creation of God and not the result of the evolution of a fish or monkey"

You really didnt listen did you?

Why must the bible be taken as literally true? The fact that variuous branches of Xtianity disagree over this point must worry you? Unless you actually take pleasure in being dogmatically wrong?

WisdomLover

"There are two excellent and highly explanatory proposals for the mechanism that drives gravity:

Gravitons.

The Curvature of Space-Time."

Gravitons are still at early stage research although the leap forward at CERN recently means that it holds promise. Space-time curvature is a consequqnce of gravity, not the mechanism by which it works.

As far as your question about evolution goes - I'm not sure what you are asking. Evolution isn't about individuals - its about populations

""Evolution is pretty much the cornerstone of biology."

Really? You don't think the molecular genetics is more fundamental?"

No. Evolution is more fundamental. I know because I read Genetics at Cambridge University.

Mike,

I was wondering your thoughts on the problem of the Majority/Minority and Sanity/Pshchosis as it relates fluxes across lipid bilayers.


We are trying to define "Know".


The materialist tries, quite hard, to have it both ways perhaps as he fails to assign anything other than repeatable and reproducible fluxes of photons across lipid bi-layers. He here differentiates psychosis from sanity by a mere [majority rules] criteria, which tells us nothing about the realness or lack thereof of the “illusion fluxes”. The universe out there may be, for we “know”, full of pink elephants, and the minority have evolved far enough along to “see” them while the rest of us merely need to “catch up”.


Pink elephants may be illusion and thus we are correct, but we cannot know this. The minority may have evolved further along and have "eyes" which the rest of us have not developed yet, for all we know. The bedrock of materialism in [Know] is [The Simple Majority of Aimless Reverberations of Photons Across Lipid Bi-Layers].

scbrownlhrm

I have no idea what you are talking about. I find your posts difficult to read and therefore understand. The constant use of square brackets, unwarranted capitalisation, quotation marks and inverted commas makes it all a bit tricky. Sorry.

Mike,

I'll try to brake it down. Our brain has fluxes of photons across neurons (lipid bilayers) and "information" is processed in that manner. Now, none of those fluxes have any "steering wheel", they are all clouds of photons/etc which move this way and that way based on aimless reverberations of conflicting forces and whatever net-sum of forces wins out drives the flux. When we "see a tree" it is some mix of various fluxes across various lipid bilayers. When some other person sees a pink elephant, it is the same set of clouds/photons in some other blindly driven pattern. We look for the most common fluxes, or, the most reproducible/repeatable, to define truth.

Or, we define sanity and psychosis based on Majority. If pretty much everyone sees green trees, but not pink elephents, then that is "know" or "sane". Those who see pink elephents are labled, because they are the minority, as "psychotic". The majority of aimless reverberations of photons across lipid bilayer defines "know" and "real" and "sane". But this can't tell us if the minority is correct and the majority is mistaken. The minority may have evoloved eyes which the rest of us have not "for all we know". Maybe we just need to "catch up" so to speak.

We can't "know" if the purely material is fooling us and our real is illusion after all.

PaulR, as a warning, we don't allow agenda posting. That is, we don't allow a person to turn every post into a discussion about his preferred topic. This post is not about Catholicism, and after looking back through your comments, I see you've done this with our posts a few times now.

We understand that sometimes the comment section will veer off a bit in the course of a conversation, but as this is proving to be a pattern with you and a particular topic, I want to let you know our policy about this. Thanks for understanding.

scbrwnlhrm

"We can't "know" if the purely material is fooling us and our real is illusion after all."

I agree with this bit I think. We cannot assumre that observational reality is congruent with 'real' reality. Science assumes this as one of its axioms (sort of) - how can you do an experiment to tell the difference?

But this is a philosophical consideration.

But, if you like - god could exist in 'reality' but we cant see god because he invisible to our sense looking at 'observational reality'. There is no way of refuting that sort of argument scientifically - it would have to come down to philosophy/theology.

Are we in agreement? At least am I making myself clear?!

Mike I think that is fair. "We cannot assumre that observational reality is congruent with 'real' reality."

It seems Consciousness has eyes to see things it cannot weigh, or see etc, such as Properties, Numbers, and the like, and over in that arena Logic and Love begin impact us. Logic seems to make us expect some particular behavior of the material, and that's a little backwards in the opinion of some.

Hi Mike,

The difference between micro and macro evolution is far from semantic. It is fundamental.

For example; a microevolutionary hypothesis....

If I go to the gym and lift weights will my muscles change (adapt) over time to the load, such that I can lift more weight (up to a point) over time.

A macroevolutionary hypothesis....

After thousands of generations and generation of the Jewish people circumcising their children, at least one of them should be born without a foreskin. (hasn't happened yet)

Do you see the difference? The words macro and micro are slightly misleading in that the change is not small or big, but rather - it's a fundamental change in the genetic information. The whole field of animal husbandry and other agricultural sciences are based on the microevolutinary hypothesis. But according to the scientific method, macroevolution has not occurred in the past, nor is it occurring now, or is it expected to occur in the future.

If you think I'm wrong, please explain why after generations and generations of blasting fruit flies with radiation, do we not get a better evolved fruit fly? Could it be that like the fossil record shows, species don't evolve into other species, but rather show adaptation and change over a lifetime within the confines of that species?

Regards,
John

Mike...just as an fyi...the knuckle draggin' theist stuff is fair to tar and brush you with.

With comments like this that you wrote to squally..(this is just one example)
"Unless you actually take pleasure in being dogmatically wrong?"
...it is pretty darn clear the contempt you have for those of us that don't cling to the macorevolutinary hypothesis. It's not that we're wrong, it's that were just stupid. I get it.

I also think it's true that when a man throws his gun at you he's probably out of bullets!

The personal contempt you hold isn't necessarily my problem (or squallys) to work out, so essentially it doesn't bother me. So forgive me if I make fun of it.

Regards,
John

John

"The difference between micro and macro evolution is far from semantic. It is fundamental." Errr no it isnt. The processes at work are identical.

"A macroevolutionary hypothesis...After thousands of generations and generation of the Jewish people circumcising their children, at least one of them should be born without a foreskin."

No, thats Lamarckian and just wrong. You aren't demonstrating a grasp on the fundamentals. I'm sure if you had thought more closely before committing to type you would have realised that this wasnt a good or accurate example. It would take some other factor to change - on a population scale - for evolution to evolve people without foreskins. It would have to be either a marked advantage or possessing a foreskin would have to be a marked disadvantage. When I say advantage, I mean in the regard that it confer a survival advantage which confers sexual advantage, or its selected for sexually etc etc

So you are missing all sorts of points.

Evolution - "your macroevolution" works over Geologic timescales - millions of years. Its a long time and difficult to envisage given our short lifespan. Change is not a fast process.

"If you think I'm wrong, please explain why after generations and generations of blasting fruit flies with radiation, do we not get a better evolved fruit fly?" What does this mean? What do you mean by better.

"Could it be that like the fossil record shows, species don't evolve into other species, but rather show adaptation and change over a lifetime within the confines of that species?" Actually it does. A great example is Tiktaalik, where the palaeontologists involved predicated that they should be able to find a fossil with specific features in rock of a very particular age (note the confluence of different branches of science). They made a VERY specific prediction. It took them 5 years, but they then found Tiktaalik which matched their prediction. Thats ppowerful evidence.

Hi Mike,

I was down in my dungeon cleaning out my whiskey stile and my barefoot, preganant wife who homeschools our 28 kids and I were talking about this just the other day...lol

Ok...let's talk fossils, since you brought up Tiktaalik. Your example has loads of problems, but for sake of the discussion, let's label Tiktaalik a transitional form. How many other transitional fossils are you claiming?

So having not dealt with the fact that you dont understand evolutioon, you now want to quiz me?

"Ok...let's talk fossils, since you brought up Tiktaalik. Your example has loads of problems, but for sake of the discussion, let's label Tiktaalik a transitional form. How many other transitional fossils are you claiming?"

What do YOU mean by transitional fossils?

"Evolution - "your macroevolution" works over Geologic timescales - millions of years. Its a long time and difficult to envisage given our short lifespan. Change is not a fast process."

That is a problem isn't it? If they would just make a scientist live long enough that could observe these fundamental genetic changes over billions of years...by gawd we'd have it! Ah - no.

The "high priests" of the macroevolutionary religion will tell you that it is perfectly reasonable to interpolate the data points we do have to make up for the data we don't. But this is not science Mike. It doesn't line up with the scientific method. If we are to conclude that fundamental genetic changes occur over vast periods of time, we need physical evidence - not data interpretation skills.

You see the thing about studying the past is that you and I weren't there. So when we construct a hypothesis to be tested, it has to be falsifiable. If it's not falsifiable, then it isn't subject to the scientific method. End of story. How does one go about falsifying interpolations of data points Mike? It's not science. You may have a nice fairy tale, but you don't have science.

Mike you also need fundamental changes in the genetic code to go from species to species. This has never occurred once in the lab either. Again, if we can't observe it happening, why would you have so much faith in it happening over time?

Mike,

Respectfully, I think you are wrong about macroevolution and I have given you some reasons why. If you think none of these reasons are significant or compelling, then please discard them. I'm here to help, not dragging you kicking and screaming into the truth.

JW

Mike wrote: "I know because I read Genetics at Cambridge University."

Mike - fyi...this is not a dating forum.

If you want to impress, SHOW US THE FOSSILS!

Oh dear.

"If we are to conclude that fundamental genetic changes occur over vast periods of time, we need physical evidence" What do you call the fossil record (palentology) agreeing with the geologic record (geology)being in harmony with numerous dating methods (Physics).
I dont think you quite grasp what is going in in various fields all of which agree that evolution is tantamount to a fact.

"You see the thing about studying the past is that you and I weren't there."

We dont have to be. canard

"So when we construct a hypothesis to be tested, it has to be falsifiable." In principle. Read Popper.

"How does one go about falsifying interpolations of data points Mike?" Give me an example and I'll show you how. Im not sure what aspect you have a problem with. I imagine its the fossil record - it usually is.

"Mike you also need fundamental changes in the genetic code to go from species to species. This has never occurred once in the lab either."

Why should it in the lab!? Evolution cant turn the clock back so one works on what is there already - and there are many reasons why large scale genetic change is then fatal at an early development stage. And once again you ignore the vast time scales that are required - despite trying to mock me at the very start of your post.

Have you ever conducted an experiment? If so, describe it.

"If you want to impress, SHOW US THE FOSSILS!"

Go to the Natural History Museum in London.

"What do YOU mean by transitional fossils?"

You're throwing verbal hammers at me and I have to carry your water now too? Sheesh!

In my view of the fossil record transitional forms are absent so the burden of defining what that term means falls squarely on the shoulders of the gentleman insisting that they exist.

(PS, you're the one who actually believes the transitions are taking place - remember?)

"I'm here to help, not dragging you kicking and screaming into the truth."

Are you serious? You want to redefine Evolution along some Lamarckian lines and when I correct you, you come back with this? Thats cheeky and hilarious.

I've had enough. Bye.

"let's label Tiktaalik a transitional form."

So its quite reasonable to ask what you mean by transitional form!!!??

Mike,

Regarding the fossil record you are confusing the first step of the scientific method - (which is observation) with theory development.

We observe the fossil record and notice distinct fully formed species, which lines up with our observation of biological life today.

The hypothesis you are proposing is that there are transitional forms that exist between these species...but the fossils that would support this hypothesis don't exist, or the ones that are held up as transitional forms later turn out to not be transitional at all, or are just plain frauds. So the physical evidence that would lead us to conclude your hypothesis is correct is absent. That's it. No magic about it. Go back to the drawing board and come back with a different hypothesis.

Well a couple guys did. One of 'em is named Dr. Gould. To account for this glaring problem with the the fossil record and the macroevolutionary hypothesis he proposed that these fundamental genetic changes occur very rapidly in the fossil record, such that we can't observe them! (think! - is this a falsifiable idea?)

If you think it's reasonable to believe that the billions and billions of transitional forms that must exist are "out there" waiting to be discovered in some untouched strata of dirt, or if you subscribe to Gould's idea that one day a bird hatched from a dinosaur egg for no reason at all, then by all means, don't let me stand in your way.

"Have you ever conducted an experiment? If so, describe it."

Mike, if I asked you to prove to me that you had beer in your fridge how would you go about doing so? Would you open the fridge and just show it to me, or would you beat around the bush and ask me a bunch of questions hops, barley and water?

If the former, then why all the rabbit trails when it comes to your belief in macroevolution?

Mike,

Why must the bible be taken as literally true? The fact that variuous branches of Xtianity disagree over this point must worry you? Unless you actually take pleasure in being dogmatically wrong?

Well, you are hitting on the main issue for me. The Bible is true. I am an inerrantist. I don't care if other branches of Christianity differ in their opinions on this subject. I worship God not man. If you have to discard the Bible to believe something then that should be a red flag. Because no proof contrary to God's word could ever possibly exist then you are wrong to believe otherwise as would the pope or a scientist or the devil also be.

Since there is no proof for ToE then you should back up your assertions rigorously. Honestly, one scientific theory fighting against another is not all that enthralling. Romans 3:4- Let God be true and every man a liar. That means that anything exalted against the word of God is not true.

A short clip for you:
http://appliedapologetics.wordpress.com/2011/07/09/dr-greg-bahnsen-vs-the-theory-of-evolution/

It would do you some good to listen to some more of Bahnsen's lectures. He makes some great points.

So evolution is more fundamental than molecular genetics. Interesting.

I'm not sure what you mean by "more fundamental". What I mean is that you can't have the one without having the other. Now, it may well be true that you can't have evolution without molecular genetics. But the reverse is obviously not true, no matter what you are reading at Cambridge.

As for gravitons, the virtual-particle exchange mechanism for explaining static forces is very well understood, and has worked beautifully for electromagnetism. It was natural to extend that mechanism to gravity. Thus gravitons.

The Curvature of space-time is the mechanism that causes gravity because it's what makes bodies moving along 'parallel' geodesics move toward each other. An analogy is this. If you and I both start moving due north, we will be walking 'parallel' to each other. But eventually we will be drawn together as if attracted by some occult force.

This effort to provide the mechanism for gravity is so successful that there have been efforts to explain all the forces of nature in terms of the geometry of a multi-dimensional manifold.

Of course, these two seemingly different models reduce to each other in the case of moderately sized slow moving objects.

On Natural Selection. Well, it's about traits in populations. But the question is how is Natural Selection not a mere tautology (and, therefore, not the mechanism of anything). I'm not saying there's no answer there. I'm saying that it's not understood with anything like the unambiguous precision that you see in physics and that it's manifestly silly to think otherwise.

WL maybe this,


..........Or, we define sanity and psychosis based on Majority. If pretty much everyone sees green trees, but not pink elephents, then that is "know" or "sane". Those who see pink elephents are labled, because they are the minority, as "psychotic". The majority of aimless reverberations of photons across lipid bilayer defines "know" and "real" and "sane". But this can't tell us if the minority is correct and the majority is mistaken. The minority may have evoloved eyes which the rest of us have not "for all we know". Maybe we just need to "catch up" so to speak.


We can't "know" if the purely material is fooling us and our real is illusion after all.


Mike stated it well: "We cannot assumre that observational reality is congruent with 'real' reality."


It seems Consciousness has eyes to see things it cannot weigh or measure outright but by Principle such as Properties and "rules" and the like. Perhaps over in that arena Logic and Love begin impact us. Laws and Logic seem to make us expect some particular behavior of the material world, and that's a little backwards in the opinion of some.


I'm not sure such backward inclines can hold in the purely material.......

WisdomLover

"I don't think there is a difference between observational reality and reality. What reason is there to think they are different?"

Have you ever seen a magic trick?

WisdomLover

Gravitons are theoretical.

Gravity is curved space time. You still wont be able to explain how that happens.

And it sounds like you are an adherent of string theory which is ironic.

I still don't understand what your problem with evolution is. You asked before about 'fitness' rather randomly. You also seem hung up on natural selection being tautolgous. Natural Selection is only one of the mechanisms of evolution so I'm not sure what your last paragraph was about. And yes we understand these mechanisms better than we understand the mechanisms of gravity.

Why dont you go and ask on http://www.physicsforums.com/. Im not a member btw. You can then link me to the thread and show me up if you are right?

WisdomLover

Look what I found. A PhD theist that agrees with me.

"Indeed, the community of professional physicists has been unable to adequately explain the mechanism of gravity. Some, mostly string theorists, posit the existence of a massless particle they've dubbed the graviton and claim that it is responsible for mediating the force of gravity, a force that has unlimited range. Others simply scoff at the notion of such a particle.

And yet, to date, there haven't been protests about the way our children are being taught physics in general and about gravity in particular.

The mechanisms of evolution, on the other hand, have long been understood, observed and measured."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-zimmerman/gravity-evolution-and-rel_b_660656.html

Michael Zimmerman, Ph.D. is the founder and director of The Clergy Letter Project, an international organization of religious leaders and scientists created to demonstrate that religion and science need not be in conflict. The Clergy Letter Project sponsors Evolution Weekend annually, an opportunity for congregations of all faiths to discuss the compatibility of religion and science.

(from here http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-zimmerman/)

I'm not making this stuff up and what I'm saying isn't outrageous

Louis-

Magic tricks (along with mundane appearance-reality divergences) turn on my making of bad inferences, not bad observations.

Mike-

Apparently nothing in evolution is theoretical, like gravitons.

Apparently nothing in evolution is an unexplained fundamental reality, like curved space.

Natural selection is only one of the mechanisms of evolution. Apparently not a big deal if it went by the wayside, because there are all those other mechanisms.

I'm very impressed to see that Dr. Zimmerman, one of the very evolutionists given to the outrageous exaltation of evolution over far harder science, outrageously exalts evolution.

BTW-Even if I granted that we have more and better theories about the mechanisms that drive evolution than we do about the mechanisms that drive gravity (which I don't...its not even close), it's still hugely false that "We know more about evolution than we know about gravity" (which was your original claim).

Let's grant, for example, that there can be very little doubt that evolution actually occurred.

But you see, there can be no doubt at all that gravity is actually in operation.

Consider the scope and accuracy of predictions that can be made about the operations of gravity.

Compare to the scope and accuracy of predictions that can be made about the operations of evolution.

The presence of gravity is one of the conditions that makes evolution even possible. So every piece of evidence in favor of evolution is, ipso facto, evidence for gravity.

The presence of evolution is not one of the conditions that makes gravity possible. Evidence for gravity does not automatically show up in evolution's column.

And on, and on.

I almost feel silly for even having the conversation. No, Mike, we do not know more about evolution than we do about gravity.

Cornell evolutionary biologist and defender, Allan MacNeill on micro versus macro evolution:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/we-is-junk/#comment-75548

One of the central tenets of the “modern synthesis of evolutionary biology” as celebrated in 1959 was the idea that macroevolution and microevolution were essentially the same process. That is, macroevolution was simply microevolution extrapolated over deep evolutionary time, using the same mechanisms and with essentially the same effects.

A half century of research into macroevolution has shown that this is probably not the case. In particular, macroevolutionary events (such as the splitting of a single species into two or more, a process known as cladogenesis) do not necessarily take a long time at all.

""Natural Selection is only one of the mechanisms of evolution so I'm not sure what your last paragraph was about. ""

MacNeill again:

As John Endler, Will Provine, and myself have repeatedly pointed out, natural selection can’t “bring about” anything. Natural selection isn’t a mechanism, it’s an outcome. The mechanisms that bring about natural selection are variation, inheritance, fecundity, and differential survival and reproduction.

"a difference between observational reality and reality..."


In a purely materialist sense, we cannot know if our reality is sheer illusion, given that the only ruler to measure with is the simple majority among aimless photon fluxes across lipid bilayers.


Now, if there are various non-material laws which we expect to push-back upon the purely material, then in fact we can move toward assurance. But such odd things as those have no rational source in the purely materialistic window. The fall downhill is on a backward incline, so much so that a few physicists are reaching into pure philosophy and laying claim to multiple universes to explain such oddness in this one.


Reality may indeed be Multiple Distincts at its core after all, and somewhere, somehow, it seems, something precedes simple matter. At least the matter of [this] universe........

Daron

So at least we are just arguing about semantics? You agree that evolution is a correct model. My university's view on micro v macro was that the same mechanisms are in place the whole time but exert different levels of influence. There's a debate about reductionism and that's interesting but the mechanisms are still well understood.
As far as the natural selection piece goes, you are really splitting hairs. Again, one needs to look at these things from a population perspective.

WisdomLover

So you are shown where you are wrong, then you ignore it (gravitons are hypothetical not theoretical), you attack the man not the content.

Just so I'm clear. When I say "We know more about evolution than we know about gravity" what I mean is that we can describe how evolution works. We cant describe how gravity works i.e what the underlying mechanism is.

You really don't like evolution. Fine. But I'm willing to bet that, just like squally, that's because it disagrees with the bible. And that to me is irrational.

What's your explanation in lieu of evolution?

Why could God not have created the laws of physics, so that evolution is actually his work?

I'd like to hear your answers but very much doubt I'll post again. SCience should be criticised - its part of the process, but not because the bible/quuarn/torah/tripitaka/book of mormon says different because the authors werent lucky enough to have the tools we do.

Mike,

It seems that you believe more in science than God. That would explain your tenacity in hanging onto the ToE. Did you get a chance to listen to The Bahnsen clip I posted a link to? The authors of the Bible had the revelation of God. That trumps any autonomous view about our realm. You don't agree, I know. Truth is not dependent on our acceptance of it. Your faith is in man. Mine is in God. So we really have a matter, once again, of competing faiths. Empiricism is a noble idea, but not a realistic attitude. No assumptions makes no sense.

"WisdomLover

Gravitons are theoretical."

"WisdomLover

So you are shown where you are wrong, then you ignore it (gravitons are hypothetical not theoretical), you attack the man not the content."

We are discussing whether we know more about evolution than gravity.

Your contention was that the graviton explanation of gravity is wanting because gravitons are theoretical (or hypothetical and not theoretical).

I think it's fair to consider, in deciding which we know more about, whether the theory of evolution also contains an essential and important reference to unverified theoretical (or hypothetical) entities, events or processes.

And of course it does.

Even if I were wrong about this, it would not be an ad hominem to make that claim. Nor would I be ignoring your charge, but be giving an answer that's entirely on point.

"When I say "We know more about evolution than we know about gravity" what I mean is that we can describe how evolution works. We cant describe how gravity works i.e what the underlying mechanism is."

I'm glad you finally are clear about this. In this case, perhaps temperance is the beginning of wisdom.

The claim "We know more about evolution than gravity" is patently false.

The claim "We can describe how evolution works, but we cannot describe how gravity works" is also false, but is at least a more measured claim.

The second claim is false because, of course, we can describe how gravity works. The best claim you can really hope to make is this:

While we know a lot more about gravity than evolution, we can give a better description of the underlying mechanism of evolution than we can of the underlying mechanism of gravity.
I'm still skeptical of this claim, but at least it is not overblown rhetoric that makes me suspicious of the speaker.

Mike,


It seems we all agree on the question of the OP.

"a difference between observational reality and reality..."

In a purely materialist sense, we cannot know if our reality is sheer illusion, given that the only ruler to measure with is the simple majority among aimless photon fluxes across lipid bilayers. As per our brief talk of pink elephants and eyes to see.

I believe you commented essentially the same to WL with, “No. Science makes no truth claims in that it does not say 'this is what reality is really like'. How could it? What experiment can you design to tell the difference between what we observe - "observational reality" and how things really are - reality. So truth in a strict sense is what religion and philosophy seek. Not science.”

Now, when WL reverses this, and claims we [can] target congruency, he has reasons to, but those reasons are not found, and never can be found, in those strict materialistic modes which we call science.

The question here is, “Can the Naturalist Know Anything"?

The answer is, “Well, not without something outside of its world”, or, at the very least it is, “Well, not without something other than science.”

Reality, it seems, cannot explain itself. Odd.

Enter the Philosophy of Physicists: If we find non-material laws pushing-back upon the material then in fact we can move toward assurance. But such odd things as those have no rational source in the purely materialistic window. The fall downhill is on a backward incline, so much so that a few physicists are reaching into pure philosophy and laying claim to multiple universes to explain such oddness in this one, as this one cannot explain itself. Reality, in pure materialistic modes of science, cannot explain itself. Odd.

Should the Multi-Verse prove true (I do not think presupposing the existence of Y solves the existence of Z if Y is but Z) then in fact we will have traveled full circle back to [Multiple Distinct Perfects] which reflects that Triune nature of the Uncreated. Such a state of affairs is the source of all things real, and how that plays out on the material side of things remains to be seen.

Reality may indeed be Multiple Distincts at its core after all, and somewhere, somehow, it seems, something precedes simple matter. At least the simple matter of [this] universe........


“Some have said that the laws of nature are simply accidental results of the way the universe cooled after the big bang. But, as Rees has pointed out, even such accidents can be regarded as secondary manifestations of deeper laws governing the ensemble of universes. Again, even the evolution of the laws of nature and changes to the constants follow certain laws. 'We’re still left with the question of how these "deeper" laws originated. No matter how far you push back the properties of the universe as somehow "emergent," their very emergence has to follow certain prior laws.'1 So multiverse or not, we still have to come to terms with the origin of the laws of nature. And the only viable explanation here is the divine Mind.” —Antony Flew (There is a God , pp. 121-122.)


WisdonLover

"Magic tricks (along with mundane appearance-reality divergences) turn on my making of bad inferences, not bad observations."

No matter what fancy collection of words you want to call it, it all boils down to making a mistake. No amount of flowery verbal wallpapering changes that.

The comments to this entry are closed.