|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Are your actions relevant to environmental degradation/global warming? |
| Yes |
|
51% |
[ 17 ] |
| No |
|
48% |
[ 16 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 33 |
|
| Author |
Message |
The Gipkik
Joined: 30 Mar 2009
|
 Posted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 5:21 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Koveras wrote: |
These literalists are well advised in their own interest to go to Omphalos, written by Philip Gosse and published in 1857, just two years before Darwin's Origin appeared . . . Eric Korn put this view in sharper focus: "The argument is not that fossils were put into rocks to make the world seem older, to confuse geologists or to test people's faith; merely that if the world was created by divine fiat, it could only be created as a going concern, with a created (not faked) past . . . the geological evidence could no more tell you when the world was created than the age of a character could tell you how long a play had continued since the rise of the curtain." . . . True, all true. The geologic record means absolutely nothing as indicator of the past apart from an antecedent faith in that past . . . In terms of strict logic, Gosse is irrefutable.
-Robert Nisbet, Prejudices |
I promised not to join this thread in order to let it continue and thrive, but just one thing: This quote in no way contradicts the theory of evolution (theory used in the scientific sense). In fact, it inadvertently reconciles the possibilities of a master designer, a godhead, with an evidence-based and naturally evolving biosphere. The two are not incompatible. Evolution absolutely is "a going concern." However, it does need to be pointed out that as much of a rationalization as the quote in reality is, it is the internal contradiction that makes it suspect: Is God trying to stay two steps ahead of the intelligent mortals he created? Is He trying to make sure that we don't discover any inconsistencies in the world? And for us to finally realize that there is an Oz hiding behind the curtain? Well, if that is true, then all things truly are possible. Science and Religion need not be at odds. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
pangaea
Joined: 20 Dec 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 6:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
nautilus wrote:
| Quote: |
Haha..you don't expect us to believe that these ridiculously sketchy and flawed creatures you've cobbled together were actually related?
Read the fine print of your website:
Quote:
Warning 1: The images are only artist's conceptions and might contain errors |
The fine print is referring to the color artist's conceptions, not the existing fossils. Of course, no one has a photograph of an extinct, fossilized animal. Are you being deliberately dense?
nautilus wrote:
| Quote: |
| Actually its up to you to provide evidence that anything has evolved. |
No, it isn't. There, won another argument.
My position is supported by science. Evolution is accepted by the scientific community and is supported by the fossil record, whether you want to believe that or not. The burden of proof is not on me to prove anything has evolved, anymore than I need to prove that the earth is round. The proof has been discovered by generations of scientists and is there in the fossil record. The burden of proof is on you to prove that no animals evolved. Not that it matters, because every time someone shows you evidence, you simply deny that it exists.
My point in posting those links was to show that there are indeed fossil remains that are recognized as transitional fossils. Repeating over and over that' "the fossil record proves nothing evolved," doesn't make it true. Quite obviously, people with much more knowledge, training, and experience than you have recognize that it does. I would love to see you go up against a paleontologist or evolutionary biologist on this issue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 8:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Gipkik wrote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
These literalists are well advised in their own interest to go to Omphalos, written by Philip Gosse and published in 1857, just two years before Darwin's Origin appeared . . . Eric Korn put this view in sharper focus: "The argument is not that fossils were put into rocks to make the world seem older, to confuse geologists or to test people's faith; merely that if the world was created by divine fiat, it could only be created as a going concern, with a created (not faked) past . . . the geological evidence could no more tell you when the world was created than the age of a character could tell you how long a play had continued since the rise of the curtain." . . . True, all true. The geologic record means absolutely nothing as indicator of the past apart from an antecedent faith in that past . . . In terms of strict logic, Gosse is irrefutable.
-Robert Nisbet, Prejudices |
I promised not to join this thread in order to let it continue and thrive, but just one thing: This quote in no way contradicts the theory of evolution (theory used in the scientific sense). In fact, it inadvertently reconciles the possibilities of a master designer, a godhead, with an evidence-based and naturally evolving biosphere. The two are not incompatible. Evolution absolutely is "a going concern." However, it does need to be pointed out that as much of a rationalization as the quote in reality is, it is the internal contradiction that makes it suspect: Is God trying to stay two steps ahead of the intelligent mortals he created? Is He trying to make sure that we don't discover any inconsistencies in the world? And for us to finally realize that there is an Oz hiding behind the curtain? Well, if that is true, then all things truly are possible. Science and Religion need not be at odds. |
OK. I posted it only to flesh out an idea. Though neither Dr. Nisbet nor I agree with the idea, we both see that it's coherent, that is, consistent with itself. I know why you think there's a contradiction, but there just isn't. The whole reason for Gosse's book is to prove that there's no contradiction, that creating a past would be part of a perfect creation. But the way I see it there's no neat dividing line between what exists in God's mind (if the phrase is permissible) and what manifests itself in the world; in other words, Mr. Korn's useful analogy between the play and manifestation ultimately fails, because the playwright exists in time, but God doesn't. If anything, the play manifests itself organically and continuously from the eternal now of God's mind (there's that phrase again). So yes, biological change might be a going concern. There *is* a fatal antagonism between the modern reductionist sciences and the traditional religious metaphysics, however this isn't the place to get into it. As an aside, godhead and master designer (ie, demiurge) aren't the same thing.
Last edited by Koveras on Fri Aug 06, 2010 8:57 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Globutron
Joined: 13 Feb 2010
Location: England/Anyang
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 8:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The burden of proof is not on me to prove anything has evolved, anymore than I need to prove that the earth is round. The proof has been discovered by generations of scientists and is there in the fossil record. |
Ever seen the truman show? Really makes you think...
The point being what koveras said is bordering on Philosophy, and philosophy is bordering on physics. And hence I find it interesting - if a tree falls alone in a forest etc etc. This sounds like a monkish thing to say but it actually has some truth behind it in science too. Which is why many scientists have faith in a creator.
But... I'm alone in a field when it comes to the physics part of this debate it seems. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 8:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| tomato wrote: |
Oh, I get it:
If you show us enough species which did not evolve over a long enough period of time, that will somehow prove that no species has ever evolved.
|
But there aren't any species that have evolved.
There is not a single fossil in the record that shows a clear and undeniable progression from simple organism to complex one.
trying to force and misconstrue two completely different species into being related makes you look even more desperate. Especially wen you cannot demonstrate the mechanism by which they are supposed to have evolved in the first place. And that you can't show any intermediates, ther is no transition.
If you were honest you'd have to admit that if evolution were true, the vast majority of fossils would be of transitional forms, and obviously and recogniseably so.
out of the millions of species and millions of fossils, all you can find is a handful of stuff you think maybe evolved. And on closer examination they are all revealed to have tremendous problems.
Do you want me to rip apart your few ridiculous posited examples? its very easy to do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Gipkik
Joined: 30 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 8:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Koveras wrote: |
OK. I posted it only to flesh out an idea. Though neither Dr. Nisbet nor I agree with the idea, we both see that it's coherent, that is, consistent with itself. I know why you think there's a contradiction, but there just isn't. The whole reason for Gosse's book is to prove that there's no contradiction, that creating a past would be part of a perfect creation. The way I see it there's no neat dividing line between what exists in God's mind (if the phrase is permissible) and what manifests itself in the world; in other words, the useful analogy between the playwright, who exists in time, and God, who doesn't, ultimately fails. If anything, the story manifests itself organically and continuously from the eternal now of God's mind (there's that phrase again). As an aside, godhead and master designer (ie, demiurge) aren't the same thing. |
Not having read Gosse's book, I'll ask you: Why is creating a past part of a perfect creation? How does the existence of a past, whether it is memory or empirically substantiated evidence, in any way make the present less than perfect? Only humans are truly capable of recognizing causality in this way, so it is for humans that such a past must have been created. But if the past was created for humans as an expression of perfection, then it needs explaining. And be careful about using formulaic religious language when discussing a topic that requires a logically rigorous trajectory to sustain it. Such language tends to obfuscate and sink the discussion into vagueness and platitudes. Godhead and master designer both appeal to Christian tastes: the trinity and monotheism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 9:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Globutron wrote: |
| Ever seen the truman show? Really makes you think... |
Ha, The Truman Show is a Gnostic allegory. How synchronous of you to bring it up just now. Very good movie. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Globutron
Joined: 13 Feb 2010
Location: England/Anyang
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 9:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Koveras wrote: |
| Globutron wrote: |
| Ever seen the truman show? Really makes you think... |
Ha, The Truman Show is a Gnostic allegory. How synchronous of you to bring it up just now. Very good movie. |
Precisely. This stuff is very interesting, Heisenberg and Schr�dinger both touch on it, and they are both unanswerable sciences. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 9:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Gipkik wrote: |
Not having read Gosse's book, I'll ask you: Why is creating a past part of a perfect creation? How does the existence of a past, whether it is memory or empirically substantiated evidence, in any way make the present less than perfect? Only humans are truly capable of recognizing causality in this way, so it is for humans that such a past must have been created. |
Right.
| The Gipkik wrote: |
| But if the past was created for humans as an expression of perfection, then it needs explaining. |
Which is what you think science does. Very well, but since that isn't an internal contradiction, I'll take it is as admitted that Gosse's idea is self-consistent.
| The Gipkik wrote: |
| And be careful about using formulaic religious language when discussing a topic that requires a logically rigorous trajectory to sustain it. Such language tends to obfuscate and sink the discussion into vagueness and platitudes. Godhead and master designer both appeal to Christian tastes: the trinity and monotheism. |
You're probably right about vagueness and platitudes. Nevertheless I had a clear idea of what I was trying to say, the thing just resists expression. I was trying to explain why I disagree with Gosse. And while the concepts of Godhead and master designer may both appear in any given metaphysics they're still logically distinct. By the way, I edited my earlier post a little bit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pangaea wrote: |
| Evolution .. is supported by the fossil record. |
Lets examine your tiktaalik. Look at the chart below.
http://creation.com/images/fp_articles/2006/tiktaalik_fig1.jpg
Note that tiktaalik is supposedly the ancestor of acanthostega. TK has fins, it closely resembles a lobe-finned fish.
AC is a ground-dwelling terapod. It has 8 digits (not a fin) and a radically different limb structure.
Where is the transition exactly? There is none: it is a giant leap.
Here is the alleged land-mammal to whale sequence.
http://creation.com/images/specialprojects/whale_sequence.gif
When published in Nature, they are illustrated as equal size. What they neglected to tell you was that basilosaurus was in fact 10 times longer than ambulocetus.
The entire fish-to-tetrapod (salamander) transition is supposed to have taken 20 M.y. Yet all the other salamnder fossils are known to have remained unchanged for much longer.
| Quote: |
| Salamanders are living fossils�they have retained the same body plan for millions of years. �Whether you look at a salamander you find under a rock in the local forest preserve or in a rock in China dating back 165 million years, they look alike. In fact, they look alike in great detail�the bones in their wrists are the same, the way their skulls are formed�intricate details are the same,� he said. |
http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/030403/salamanders.shtml
Its the same with all the amber-fossilized insects of the eocene: there is no change whatsoever in "95 million years".
http://www.ambersdenydarwin.com/amber_01.html
When we have the overwhelming majority of fossils showing no change, and only one or two highly dubious posited examples of transitionals, it becomes very obvious that evolutionists are desperately trying to force the evidence to conform to their theory. They're not following evidence where it leads, they're trying to force the evidence to follow their preconceptions.
Tiktaalik was obviously just a fish. That is now presumably extinct. Or it may be found alive, like the coelecanth- another supposed "transitional form" to embarass the evolutionists. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 9:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Globutron wrote: |
| Also it was proven otherwise, and Behe conceded that he was wrong: |
I'm not sure how you figure that, but here's an interview with Behe as regards to the "trial" and other things. Interesting reading.
KZ: Is the modern, western society whose dominant ideological principal values are predicated on secularism, disestablishment and disbelief in a "talented agent" whom the monotheistic religions call "God", really afraid of the growing confidence in an intelligent designer who can not be merely described within the frameworks of tangible science? Why do they really prohibit the teaching of evolution theory in the schools and universities if there's allegedly a freedom of speech and unrestricted debate in the western societies?
MB: There are several reasons why there is such a strong reaction by the scientific community against intelligent design. First, at least in the United States, there has been a history of conflict between science and some religious groups (those who believe in a young earth), so some people automatically view the idea of intelligent design in light of those conflicts. A second reason is that many scientists want to think that they will be able to explain all features of the universe, and they resent people who claim that science may not be able to do that. Finally, many scientists, especially at the more elite institutions, are atheists and simply don't want there to be a God or anything beyond nature. They strongly resist anything that would suggest they may be wrong.
etc etc
http://medialeft.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=77:interview-with-michael-behe-on-intelligent-design-isolation-and-defamation-the-cost-of-thinking-differently-&catid=50:iran&Itemid=56 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Gipkik
Joined: 30 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 9:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Koveras wrote: |
| The Gipkik wrote: |
| But if the past was created for humans as an expression of perfection, then it needs explaining. |
Which is what you think science does. Very well, but since that isn't an internal contradiction, I'll take it is as admitted that Gosse's idea is self-consistent. |
I made no mention of science in this context, but implied observation. If the past is observed to have existed, and the human mind observes this existence in the present, how is the past perfect? This is beginning to sound like St. Anselm's argument.
The internal contradiction that I was referring to is this: Why would a God create a thinking human capable of volition and then try and hide the fact that He created the world by creating a perfect past? Not to mention what a slippery slope that intended perfect past would require. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pangaea
Joined: 20 Dec 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 9:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
nautilus wrote:
| Quote: |
But there aren't any species that have evolved.
There is not a single fossil in the record that shows a clear and undeniable progression from simple organism to complex one. |
We both know it doesn't matter how many transitional fossils you are shown. You will simply go into denial mode and dismiss them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Globutron
Joined: 13 Feb 2010
Location: England/Anyang
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 9:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| A second reason is that many scientists want to think that they will be able to explain all features of the universe, and they resent people who claim that science may not be able to do that. |
But this is wrong, too. As I've stated about 9 times in the previous pages, The Heisenberg principal makes it very, very clear that scientists have accepted that they will never be able to explain the universe. It's impossible. SCIENTISTS discovered and published this. ALL real scientists know this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 9:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pangaea wrote: |
We both know it doesn't matter how many transitional fossils you are shown. You will simply go into denial mode and dismiss them. |
Simple denials do not help your case.
Why not tackle the points I raised? |
|
| 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
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
