Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Yet another icon of evolution falls.

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Yet another icon of evolution falls.
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 29, 30, 31 ... 43, 44, 45 Next

This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

HijackedTw1light

Joined: 24 May 2010
Location: Daegu

Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:41 am Post subject:

pucciniphile wrote:

I'm introducing theological assumptions?

Yep, I'm afraid you are, and I bet if you'd actually breathed deep a few times and thought about it, you'd have seen it yourself.

First you're assuming that the fine-tuning means God (could be, that's the most common idea, but there are other possibilities). Then you're presuming to know the mind of God--believing that if there's a God there should be no suffering in the world and so forth. Those are theological assumptions. Then you are checking the real world against a world based on those assumptions.

Notions of God's intentions are beside the point of the fine-tuning argument. The fact that you haven't understood this yet shows you haven't really been paying attention. We are in a situation where it looks like all the dials were set within a very fine range. Is there some entity setting the dials, or is there another explanation? You are dismissing the notion of intentional selection, but so far you have not done it based on scientific reasons, you've done it based on your own expectations of what the world would look like if there was a God.

pucciniphile

Joined: 23 Jun 2011

Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2011 5:05 am Post subject:

Sorry, that's the best I could do. I told you quite clearly that I don't understand that term, I asked you quite nicely to define the term, but you refused to. And now you're surprised that I don't understand the term! If God is not the fine tuner, then who or what is the fine tuner? And if you can't identify the fine tuner, then how do you know that he or she or it exists? And if what I had in mind isn't what the fine tuner is tuned to, then what is it tuned to? A particular musical pitch? A particular color? A particular location? I'm doing the best I can to understand, and since I don't understand, you say it's all my fault. Screwtape must be very proud of Wormwood right now.

HijackedTw1light

Joined: 24 May 2010
Location: Daegu

Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2011 6:09 am Post subject:

pucciniphile wrote:

Sorry, that's the best I could do.
I told you quite clearly that I don't understand that term,
I asked you quite nicely to define the term,
but you refused to.
And now you're surprised that I don't understand the term!

I think you asked me to define "fine tuner," not fine tuning. Am I wrong? Anyway, I had already summed up what fine tuning is several times with Brento, and I mentioned that it doesn't necessarily require a fine tuner (that would be just one explanation for it).

If you insist, though, here's a definition from Wikipedia:

Quote:

The fine-tuned Universe is the idea that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can only occur when certain universal fundamental physical constants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different the universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is presently understood.

pucciniphile wrote:

If God is not the fine tuner, then who or what is the fine tuner?

It could be a deity. It could be brilliant scientists from a brilliant species in the next universe up, who happen to be running a contest on who can design the most interesting universe. (the winner will go to the universe in which life develops that is intelligent enough to speculate that scientists in the next universe up designed their universe!)

But specifying a particular fine-tuner isn't necessary in order to acknowledge the fine-tuning phenomena. Especially since a fine-tuner is just one explanation for it.

pucciniphile wrote:

And if you can't identify the fine tuner, then how do you know that he or she or it exists?

I don't think you can say with certainty that a fine-tuner exists. I would agree with you on that. I think all I've suggested is that it's one explanation and that it's not an irrational explanation.

Is that really such a terrible thing to say, btw? Can you not accept that?

pucciniphile wrote:

And if what I had in mind isn't what the fine tuner is tuned to,
then what is it tuned to?
A particular musical pitch?
A particular color?
A particular location?

The idea is that the universe is tuned to life (usually people mean intelligent life, but not always).

pucciniphile wrote:

I'm doing the best I can to understand,
and since I don't understand, you say it's all my fault.

I did? I said it's all your fault? Sheesh, I'll have to check the videotape.

No, no. I don't blame you for not understanding. It's not like we're born with this knowledge.

If you want to do some fun reading on the subject, I'd recommend the blog of astronomer Luke Barnes, where he has a series of posts critiquing others' articles or blog posts on the subject. He takes aim at atheists like PZ Myers, Victor Stenger, and Hector Avalos (which is fun because all of them get wind of his posts and try to debate him in the comments section), but he also fires salvos at creationists like William Lane Craig and Hugh Ross.

PZ Myers: http://letterstonature.wordpress.com/2010/02/24/fishing-while-the-world-burns-a-fine-tuned-critique-of-p-z-myers/

Hugh Ross: http://letterstonature.wordpress.com/2010/02/17/any-claim-will-do-a-fine-tuned-critique-of-hugh-ross/

pucciniphile wrote:

Screwtape must be very proud of Wormwood right now.

Are you a C.S. Lewis fan?

Junior

Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye

Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2011 8:07 am Post subject:

Brento wrote:

Now let me address the problem with the underlying concept of Intelligent Design of irreducible complexity. The idea here is that certain molecules are so complex that they could not possibly have been produced by evolutionary processes. So, you know, that's an idea. OK. And as scientists, they will look at that idea, and say "This is sort of more like a judgment call."

Complexity, is one thing. Irreducibility is another. You don't seem to appreciate quite what is involved with either.

I advise you to do something as simple as picking up a feather, or a flower one day. Maybe even take a look at it under a microscope.
If you can believe that such an object of beauty can be created by chance, or "trial and error"...then why can't you believe genesis?
Seems to me your belief requires more faith than does mine.

Quote:

They are judging that these molecules are too complex to have been produced by evolutionary processes.

They undoubtedly are if you think that the mechanism of their creation is random mutation.
never mind their initial lucky coming into being. Nothing comes from nothing.

Quote:

But the judgment is not subject to experimental test. And so real scientists look at that idea, this judgment call on their part, that some molecules are too complex, say "How do we test that?"

Its not a matter of testing. Its a matter of using what science has already undeniably told us. Which is that mutations do not increase complexity or overall fitness.

Quote:

But let's look at your claim that it is wholly scientific. Let's talk about the Intelligent Design proponents. Aren't these guys experts? Actually, some of them are experts, but almost none of them are scientists.

oh puh-leeeeeaaase. Rolling Eyes

So a scientist is only a scientist if you say so? And you only grant your royal seal of approval if the guy is an evolutionist?

Quote:

Many deists accept evolution as fact. Behe almost accepts it.

I think you're getting confused once again with the different definitions of evolution- micro and macro etc.
That is a consistent devious ploy of your propogandists. They challenge average clueless people not to believe in something like natural variation or natural selection. of course that is undeniable. But then they say that "this is evolution". sorry but that doesn't account for the wider claims of the theory- that everything was spontaneously generated from one original cell.
Its a sleight of hand trick. Its a bit like saying if you believe in gold dust then you believe in fairies. Its a deliberate misrepresentation.

Quote:

But there's a HUGE flaw: he's still doing the ole shrug-the-shoulders and throw-up-the-hands, saying "it looks too difficult for me, so I'll just say it's impossible to understand." That's not what scientists do!

Thats what evolutionist do though isn't it?. "evolution did it".
Also I don't think he shrugs his shoulders at all. He studies and understands the biochemistry and microbiology of the cell at a very detailed level and demostrates how it meets the criteria of irreducibility, of design, and indicates intelligence. (To make a ridiculously massive understement.)

Quote:

Let the children decide for themselves? Or should we only present them with the empirical facts?

"Whales must have come from mouse deer because they both like the water" is not an "empirical fact", its a brainfart.

Quote:

Just like how you accepted two lizards of the same family share a common ancestor (but yet you still reject that the same could be possible of the Hominidae family.)

I don't think you've ever bothered to read my statements of belief, even though I have made them numerous times. I believe that groups of closely associated species, roughly corresponding to todays definition of "genus", are related descendants of what walked off the ark-originally created types of animals. They have devolved via genetic isolation but in most cases can still interbreed.

Quote:

I'll be in control of my own brain, thank you very much!

Actually it appears you're in control of the ape cult and its propogandists.

Junior

Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye

Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2011 9:45 am Post subject:

Underwaterbob wrote:

Anyhow, it turns out he obtained the bones, that were part of a museum display and had been treated with preservatives, under false pretenses in the first place. Does this person sound trustworthy?

"being treated with preservatives" is hardly going to affect carbon dating is it?. The fact remains You can see see the official leterhead. One of your institutions created a fantasy date for some bones because they did not realise they were testing dino-bone. if they had done then they would have conjured up some figure to conform to their theory.

But in any case, your darwin head-slappers make similar goofs all the time. They dated lava from hualalai volcano in Hawaii ( 200 years old) to be 1.4M ya. They dated lava from sunset crater (errupted Ad 1064) as being 250000 ya.
http://creation.com/more-and-more-wrong-dates-radio-dating-in-rubble
They dated lava from Mt Ngauruhoe, New Zealand (errupted 1954) as being 3.5My.a.
http://creation.com/radioactive-dating-failure

brento1138

Joined: 17 Nov 2004

Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2011 10:58 am Post subject:

HijackedTw1light wrote:

Please, say it with me this time: "This is different from rainbows." Early-universe cosmologists are not studying ephemeral phenomena. They are studying the laws, initial conditions, and constants of the universe. They are deliberately delving into first causes. At some point you *do* get to those bedrock laws or law of the universe. You cannot regress forever.

But that's what people said about rainbows, disease, all kinds of things. We've advanced since then. Try to put yourself in 13th century Africa. You look at a guy with malaria. It's obvious that we'll never really figure out what's going on with him. We just don't have the tools available to us, yet. So maybe the shaman is right. Maybe demons have caused his illness. The way to cure him would be to inflict as much pain on him as possible so that the demons will wish to leave his body.

You see where I'm going with this? Saying you "cannot regress forever" may be true, but science says "let's see how far we can go."

HijackedTw1light wrote:

Yes, we can learn more, and yes we are trying to learn more and delve deeper.

Great! I'm in agreement with you.

HijackedTw1light wrote:

Sorry, but I have to repeat myself again...fine-tuned does not necessarily mean "best possible." I don't know where you heard this, but this is not how scientists talk about the issue, except maybe informally, as a figure of speech.

I am aware of what "fine-tuned universe" means. I think Victor Stenger says it best though:

Quote:

Victor Stenger says that even though "life as we know it would not exist if any one of several of the constants of physics were just slightly different, [we] cannot prove that some other form of life is feasible with a different set of constants. Anyone who insists that our form of life is the only one conceivable is making a claim based on no evidence and no theory."

Also:

Quote:

Computer simulations suggest that not all of the purportedly "fine-tuned" parameters may be as fine-tuned as has been claimed. Victor Stenger has simulated different universes in which four fundamental parameters are varied. He found that long-lived stars could exist over a wide parameter range, and concluded that "... a wide variation of constants of physics leads to universes that are long-lived enough for life to evolve, although human life need not exist in such universes".

Another one:

Quote:

The validity of fine tuning examples is sometimes questioned on the grounds that such reasoning is subjective anthropomorphism applied to natural physical constants. Critics also suggest that the fine-tuned universe assertion and the anthropic principle are essentially tautologies. The fine-tuned universe argument has also been criticized as an argument by lack of imagination because it assumes no other forms of life, sometimes referred to as carbon chauvinism. Conceptually, alternative biochemistry or other forms of life are possible. In addition, critics argue that humans are adapted to the universe through the process of evolution, rather than the universe being adapted to humans (see puddle thinking). They also see it as an example of the logical flaw of hubris or anthropocentrism in its assertion that humans are the purpose of the universe.

And relation to the multiverse hypothesis:

Quote:

The Multiverse hypothesis assumes the existence of many universes with different physical constants, some of which are hospitable to intelligent life. Because we are intelligent beings, we are by definition in a hospitable one. Mathematician Michael Ikeda and astronomer William H. Jefferys have argued that the anthropic principle resolves the entire issue of fine-tuning, as does philosopher of science Elliott Sober. Philosopher and theologian Richard Swinburne reaches the opposite conclusion using Bayesian probability.

This approach has led to considerable research into the anthropic principle and has been of particular interest to particle physicists because theories of everything do apparently generate large numbers of universes in which the physical constants vary widely. As of yet, there is no evidence for the existence of a multiverse, but some versions of the theory do make predictions which some researchers studying M-theory and gravity leaks hope to see some evidence of soon. The existence of additional universes in a multiverse, other than the observable universe, is not falsifiable, and thus some are reluctant to call the multiverse idea a "scientific" idea. UNC-Chapel Hill professor Laura Mersini-Houghton claims that the WMAP cold spot may provide testable empirical evidence for a parallel universe.

Variants on this approach include Lee Smolin's notion of cosmological natural selection, the Ekpyrotic universe, and the Bubble universe theory.

Critics of the multiverse-related explanations argue that there is no evidence that other universes exist.

Sources obtained from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_tuned_universe

HijackedTw1light wrote:

Do you have a problem with the word "fine-tuned" because it implies a fine-tuner? You don't have to look at it that way. The point is that it would appear that the odds of the universe being set (again, I'm saying "being set" but you don't have to think of some entity who "sets" it) to allow intelligent life is mind-bogglingly small.

Yes, the chances of intelligent life existing in our universe do seem small to us now. But we don't have the real data to make that calculation. Our knowledge is growing. But it's very limited at the moment.

It could be possible we are the only intelligent beings in our galaxy, and it is possible we live in a galaxy full of intelligent species patiently waiting for us to reach a certain level of development before making contact. Right now we just don't know.

Life (unintelligent or intelligent) may just be a property of matter/energy under certain conditions. The fact is that right now, we just don't know. We're fish living in a fish tank and haven't been outside of the fish tank... well, actually we have, but so far there's not many places for us fish to swim in. The only planets we've explored do not appear to have life. We do not yet know if Europa or Mars have bacterial life, or if Titan has some sort of unknown life we haven't conceived of yet. There's a whole lot we do not know, and it's OK to say "we don't know." After saying "I don't know" there are two possible courses to take: say it is beyond our understanding (aka outside of the realm of science) or we can research it further and learn more about it. I'll always hope for the second option, although perhaps at this point in time we do not have all the tools necessary to do the best job.

So yeah, I still think that saying this universe is "fine-tuned" is still a judgment call. A judgment call that isn't based on good facts. Who knows, maybe in the future we will be able to say "Yeah, this is one darned good universe! Glad we don't live in the neighboring ones!"

HijackedTw1light wrote:

It's widely accepted. It's by far the consensus among scientists.

The consensus is that our universe has certain laws and properties that allow life to form, and if they were to be a little bit off in various ways, or if we removed something (say the possibility for Hydrogen to form), life couldn't exist.

A broken piano may not be considered "fine-tuned" by a pianist, but it might sound wonderful to someone from a pre-historic jungle tribe village. So, it's still a judgment call.

Again, this guy says it best, in my opinion:

Quote:

Victor Stenger argues that "... The fine-tuning argument and other recent intelligent design arguments are modern versions of God of the gaps reasoning, where a God is deemed necessary whenever science has not fully explained some phenomenon".

The argument from imperfection suggests that if the universe were designed to be fine-tuned for life, it should be the best one possible and that evidence suggests that it is not. In fact, most of the universe is highly hostile to life.

Additionally Stenger argues, "We have no reason to believe that our kind of carbon-based life is all that is possible. Furthermore, modern cosmology indicates that multiple universes may exist with different constants and laws of physics. So, it is not surprising that we live in the one suited for us. The universe is not fine-tuned to life; life is fine-tuned to the universe."

HijackedTw1light

Joined: 24 May 2010
Location: Daegu

Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2011 9:21 pm Post subject:

brento1138 wrote:

Try to put yourself in 13th century Africa. You look at a guy with malaria. It's obvious that we'll never really figure out what's going on with him. We just don't have the tools available to us, yet. So maybe the shaman is right. Maybe demons have caused his illness. The way to cure him would be to inflict as much pain on him as possible so that the demons will wish to leave his body.

You see where I'm going with this? Saying you "cannot regress forever" may be true, but science says "let's see how far we can go."

Brento, this is not ancient Africa. You're operating on a basic misunderstanding. The conundrum of the fine-tuned universe did not come about because of what we *don't* know, but because of what we *do* know. It's only because of our advances in theoretical physics and astronomical observation that we became aware of these issues. And it's our knowledge of chemistry and biology that tells us in what conditions life can form. It's based on knowledge, not ignorance.

Again, the rainbow analogy doesn't work. A rainbow is a natural phenomena. Science observes and explains natural phenomena, based on knowledge of the laws of the universe. Science does not, however, observe and explain the laws of the universe. It presupposes those laws.

Furthermore, even if we advance and achieve a more fundamental understanding of early universe cosmology, the fine-tuned examples aren't going away. First, because there are so many of them, operating on so many different levels. And second, because any fundamental law would have to have been set in the life-permitting range, which in itself would be a great coincidence. I've already written this twice before. This is the third time. Did you not read it before? Did you not understand? If not, why not?

brento1138 wrote:

I am aware of what "fine-tuned universe" means. I think Victor Stenger says it best though:

Quote:

I think what he meant to say was that we cannot prove life is *not* feasible with a different set of constants. Otherwise it doesn't really make sense.

Anyway, I agree with him, as far as that goes. We cannot prove that it is impossible for some other form of life to arise in some other universe. However, that is not the point. The fine-tuned universe idea does not stipulate that ours is the only possible form of life, only that life-permitting universes are exceedingly rare.

brento1138 wrote:

Also:

Quote:

You'd be better off if you stopped quoting Stenger. Not only are Stenger's equations based on invalid assumptions, but they're just plain wrong. He literally gets the math wrong:

http://letterstonature.wordpress.com/2010/04/18/no-faith-in-monkeygod-a-fine-tuned-critique-of-victor-stenger-part-2/

brento1138 wrote:

Another one:

Quote:

This is getting tiresome. I feel like you're poring over the Internet for any and every objection you can find, then copying-and-pasting it as fast as you can. Stop for a minute next time. What do you, Brento, actually believe? Write from your own thoughts. I find it hard to believe you endorse all of the above objections. Some are inconsistent with what you've already posted. You started with a relatively straightforward explanation to the fine-tuning, the multiverse, and now as the conversation has gone on it seems you're hedging your bets and now any objection will do. Life chauvinism/anthropocentrism? Really?? I mean, which of the above objections do you actually believe? Just one? Two? I'm too busy to swat down everything on the Internet.

brento1138 wrote:

Our understanding in theoretical physics is much more precise than it is in say, evolutionary biology. We are able to predict what universes would be like if parameters were different. Combine that with our knowledge of chemistry and biology and we can say quite a lot about life in such universes.

You keep saying "we have limited data" and "we don't know." I am willing to grant that you, Brento, don't know, but there are some smart scientists out there who do in fact know quite a lot. Best not plug your ears to to what they have to say.

comm

Joined: 22 Jun 2010

Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2011 12:51 am Post subject:

So Junior is continuing to link to things that aren't sourced. His last two links provided sources which required a subscription to "Creation Magazine" to view, instead of the supposed scientific studies to which the sources were referring... worthless. Brento and HijackedTwilight: Aren't you both just arguing over the Weak vs Strong Anthropic Principles? Either the Universe has the correct variables for our type of life so that we will be around to observe it OR we are around to observe the Universe because the variables happen to be correct for our type of life. Which perspective you take seems to be a matter of opinion. Though I will say that, if the Universe was made to support life, it certainly wasn't done very efficiently.

Underwaterbob

Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito

Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2011 3:56 am Post subject:

Junior wrote:

Underwaterbob wrote:

Anyhow, it turns out he obtained the bones, that were part of a museum display and had been treated with preservatives, under false pretenses in the first place. Does this person sound trustworthy?

"being treated with preservatives" is hardly going to affect carbon dating is it?.

Do you know that for a fact? How about the fact that carbon dating is known to only be reliable up to 40'000 years, and totally useless for dating anything older, like the dinosaur bones in question? To plow my analogy into the ground: you're discrediting all car mechanics based on the fact that one failed to tune your piano.

Junior wrote:

The fact remains You can see see the official leterhead.

I don't doubt that the lab did this dating, and got these results. I also don't doubt that the bones were acquired under false pretenses, and that carbon dating dinosaur bone samples (treated with preservatives no less) is the equivalent of having your mechanic tune your piano.

I also have trouble trusting sources that are incapable of operating a marker to sufficiently cross out their name and address on a scan of a document they post online, not to mention claim to have spent "years and thousands of dollars" maintaining their animated-GIF laden, HTML-table-using, clearly very out of date Angelfire homepage.

Junior wrote:

One of your institutions created a fantasy date for some bones because they did not realise they were testing dino-bone.

At least you've dropped the argument that the dates they came up with jived with your creation fantasy.

Let me fix that for you:

Junior wrote:

One of your institutions dated some bones that they were incapable of dating correctly because they were tricked into testing dino-bone. Proving absolutely nothing and wasting everyone's time and resources.

Junior wrote:

if they had done then they would have conjured up some figure to conform to their theory.

Until you show us proof of this conspiracy theory of yours, statements like the above mean nothing.

Junior wrote:

But in any case, your darwin head-slappers make similar goofs all the time. They dated lava from hualalai volcano in Hawaii ( 200 years old) to be 1.4M ya. They dated lava from sunset crater (errupted Ad 1064) as being 250000 ya.
http://creation.com/more-and-more-wrong-dates-radio-dating-in-rubble

Any article that states:

Quote:

However, we know the date can�t be right, because it conflicts with Biblical chronology.

automatically loses any and all scientific credibility. (Their references refer to Austin, already shown to be a fraud.)

Junior wrote:

They dated lava from Mt Ngauruhoe, New Zealand (errupted 1954) as being 3.5My.a.
http://creation.com/radioactive-dating-failure

More fraud. Potassium-argon dating is only useful from up to about 4 billion to 100'000 years ago. (Notice the lab's results are on the lower end of the effective range of K-Ar dating. That figure was .29 to 3.5 million years BTW.)

I don't know much about this particular instance, but apparently it's not uncommon for creation "scientists" to dupe labs into testing untestable samples and then claim victory when the labs produce "incorrect" results, or to just flat out misrepresent their sources.

I read your sources, now here's one for you:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dalrymple/radiometric_dating.html

An excerpt:

Quote:

The advocates of �scientific� creationism frequently point to apparent inconsistencies in radiometric dating results as evidence invalidating the techniques. This argument is specious and akin to concluding that all wristwatches do not work because you happen to find one that does not keep accurate time. In fact, the number of �wrong� ages amounts to only a few percent of the total, and nearly all of these are due to unrecognized geologic factors, to unintentional misapplication of the techniques, or to technical difficulties.

Last edited by Underwaterbob on Mon Sep 26, 2011 4:09 am; edited 4 times in total

brento1138

Joined: 17 Nov 2004

Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2011 3:59 am Post subject:

Junior wrote:

I advise you to do something as simple as picking up a feather, or a flower one day. Maybe even take a look at it under a microscope.
If you can believe that such an object of beauty can be created by chance, or "trial and error"...then why can't you believe genesis?
Seems to me your belief requires more faith than does mine.

This is simply the argument from incredulity. It's a logical fallacy that essentially relies on a lack of imagination from its user. Read up on it, Junior:

Quote:

The general form of the argument is as follows.
* Major premise: One can't imagine (or has not imagined) how P could be so.
* Minor premise (unstated): If P were so, one could imagine (or would have imagined) how.
* Conclusion: Not-P.

As a syllogism this is valid. The fallacy lies in the unstated minor premise. If a state of affairs is impossible to imagine, it doesn't follow that it is false; it may only mean that imagination is limited. Moreover, if no one has yet managed to imagine how a state of affairs is possible, it doesn't follow that no one will ever be able to.

As an example, creationists incessantly use some difficult-to-explain facet of biology as "proof" of a creator. The problem is that, though there is no non-design explanation for how precisely a certain organ could have evolved at the moment, one may be discovered in the future. Contrary to the instincts of many creationists, lack of an explanation does not justify confecting whatever explanation one would prefer. The inexplicable is just that, and does not justify speculation as proof.

Sometimes creationists compute the astronomical odds against a molecule having a certain structure from the simple probability of n atoms arranging themselves so. They gloss over the fact that chemical laws trim most of the extraneous possibilities away. For instance, there are many ways to theoretically arrange hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms in a molecule, but in reality, most of what forms is H2O.

Another form, the argument from personal incredulity, takes the form "I can't believe P, therefore not-P." Merely because one cannot believe that, for example, homeopathy is no more than a placebo does not magically make such treatment effective. Clinical trials are deliberately designed in such a way that an individual personal experience is not important compared to data in aggregate. Human beings have extremely advanced pattern recognition skills, to the extent that they are objectively poor judges of probability.

Sometimes argument from incredulity is applied to epistemological statements, taking the form "One can't imagine how one could know whether P or not-P, therefore it is unknowable whether P or not-P." This is employed by some (though not all) strong agnostics who say it is unknowable whether gods exist. The argument in this case is, "No one has thought of a way to determine whether there are gods, so there is no way." The implied minor premise, "If there were such a way, someone would have thought of it," is disputable.

See more about this logical fallacy here: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

Junior wrote:

Its not a matter of testing. Its a matter of using what science has already undeniably told us. Which is that mutations do not increase complexity or overall fitness.

Say Whaaaat? Ummm, but science tests stuff. Without the testing, there is no science. Science doesn't just say stuff because we want it to. That would fall more into the category of religion. And science has never told us "that mutations do not increase complexity or overall fitness" except for creationist or ID sources (which are not scientific, as they don't test stuff, they just say stuff). Not only does the above quotation display your confusion over what science is, but also your denial in the clear scientific evidence which demonstrates increased complexity / overall fitness thanks to random genetic mutation with non-random natural selection.

Also, my point still stands. As I said before: Proponents of Intelligent Design are judging that molecules, life on Earth, are too complex to have been produced by evolutionary processes. But the judgment is not subject to experimental test. And so real scientists look at that idea, this judgment call on their part, that some molecules are too complex, say "How do we test that?"

Junior wrote:

oh puh-leeeeeaaase. Rolling Eyes

So a scientist is only a scientist if you say so? And you only grant your royal seal of approval if the guy is an evolutionist?

Not if I say so. This is according to all scientists. I will repeat what you probably didn't read before: just because you have a science degree, doesn't mean you're a scientist. If you are not testing hypotheses and doing research and publishing it, you are not a scientist. You may have a science degree, but you are not a scientist. Proponents of Intelligent Design, or Creationism, must follow the rules every other scientist follows if they want to be considered scientists. That means they've got to submit their ideas to peer review, get reviewed by other people, if it gets rejected they've got to re-evaluate their ideas because they are not accepted by the scientific community. There hasn't been a single scientific publication that has anything to do with intelligent design. Why is this? What are they afraid of? If they have such good theories, evidence, and science, why not make it all available to scientists so they can study it? It's because it would fall flat on its face, much like the Flat-Earth theory or chemicals-cause-rainbows conspiracy-theory going around right now.

Junior wrote:

I think you're getting confused once again with the different definitions of evolution- micro and macro etc.

If there is any confusion with the above, it's to do with your belief that microevolution is distinct from macroevolution. Although they are different measurements of the same thing, they are the same process. You just don't accept one of them. It's the same as saying you can add up to ten, by adding up 1 plus 1 plus 1 etc. But you are saying it is impossible to add up to 100, and that we can only possibly ever add up to 10, even though it is totally feasible to add up to 100, 1000, or even 1000000. Just because your imagination is limited, doesn't mean that macroevolution is not happening.

Read here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB902.html

Junior wrote:

That is a consistent devious ploy of your propogandists.

You lose credibility when you talk like that. Scientific knowledge is the exact opposite of propaganda.

Junior wrote:

They challenge average clueless people not to believe in something like natural variation or natural selection. of course that is undeniable. But then they say that "this is evolution". sorry but that doesn't account for the wider claims of the theory- that everything was spontaneously generated from one original cell.

Just because it is hard for you to imagine, doesn't mean it is not true. Just because you do not have the capacity (educational, lack of bias, etc.) to understand it doesn't mean it is false. Again, this is argument from incredulity. It doesn't fly. Sorry.

Junior wrote:

Its a sleight of hand trick. Its a bit like saying if you believe in gold dust then you believe in fairies. Its a deliberate misrepresentation.

Do you think believing in fairies is silly, Junior?

Quote:

brento1138 wrote:

...he's still doing the ole shrug-the-shoulders and throw-up-the-hands, saying "it looks too difficult for me, so I'll just say it's impossible to understand." That's not what scientists do!

Junior wrote:

Thats what evolutionist do though isn't it?. "evolution did it".

But saying something is too complex for science to study is pretty much giving up, isn't it? Unless you think scrapping science to go with some supernatural explanation is a better option?

I think I'll stick with the science, thanks.

Junior wrote:

"Whales must have come from mouse deer because they both like the water" is not an "empirical fact", its a brainfart.

Well, if it is good science versus Junior's incredulity, I'll take the science any day.

Junior wrote:

So you take back your statement about the lizards then? Because that would rely on your belief that different families can have a common descendant. If you go up to genus, then your lizard example doesn't work anymore, and we have evolution plainly evident in your face, and your denying it. Unless, of course, you can accept that chimps and humans both have a common ancestor. What shall it be, oh Junior?

Junior wrote:

Actually it appears you're in control of the ape cult and its propogandists.

Hmmm, OK. For a moment there I thought I was having a convo with a rational person. But statements like that make you look a little wacky, Junior... kinda like the crazy-rainbow lady...

Crazy Rainbow Lady: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HV9gRFv5Kgc

pucciniphile

Joined: 23 Jun 2011

Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2011 4:25 am Post subject:

"Hijacked Twilight wrote:

And it's our knowledge of chemistry and biology that tells us in what conditions life can form. It's based on knowledge, not ignorance.

There is some degree of truth in what you said, but I prefer to say that pursuit of knowledge, rather than knowledge itself, is the basis of science. Reputable scientists do not pretend to have the last word. Read the last paragraph of almost any article in a professional journal and you will see an admission that the study left some questions unanswered. There is usually a plea for further research.

Quote:

You keep saying "we have limited data" and "we don't know." I am willing to grant that you, Brento, don't know, but there are some smart scientists out there who do in fact know quite a lot. Best not plug your ears to to what they have to say.

Yes, and you will find that they say "we have limited data" and "we don't know."
I doubt if there are very many scientists who suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect.

brento1138

Joined: 17 Nov 2004

Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2011 5:28 am Post subject:

HijackedTw1light wrote:

It was all from Wikipedia actually (all the same source link I provided). It was just interesting material, that's all. As for my beliefs, I am a skeptic so the notion of unfounded beliefs doesn't really apply to me. I guess you could say I simply accept science, and ponder the possibilities. As for "believing" in something without good evidence to support it, I think it's a bit over-rated.

HijackedTw1light wrote:

Write from your own thoughts. I find it hard to believe you endorse all of the above objections. Some are inconsistent with what you've already posted. You started with a relatively straightforward explanation to the fine-tuning, the multiverse, and now as the conversation has gone on it seems you're hedging your bets and now any objection will do. Life chauvinism/anthropocentrism? Really?? I mean, which of the above objections do you actually believe? Just one? Two? I'm too busy to swat down everything on the Internet.

I wasn't asking you to swat them down, or even wondering if you would. I thought it might be interesting for you to read, though.

HijackedTw1light wrote:

Did you hear the news about possibly breaking the speed of light yet? Or problems with the String Theory thanks to LHC experiments? What about M-theory, Supersymmetry, the Theory of Everything, Emergence, Einstein-Rosen Bridge...?? The list goes on.

Saying "our understanding of theoretical physics is much more precise than it is" in evolutionary biology is more of a judgment call on your part.

HijackedTw1light wrote:

But we don't know about other universes or if they exist. Let me provide a wonderful quote by Carl Sagan that I totally agree with:

Quote:

"Really, it's okay to reserve judgment until the evidence is in." - Carl Sagan

HijackedTw1light wrote:

Again, the rainbow analogy doesn't work. A rainbow is a natural phenomena.

The rainbow example (and the ancient Africa one) was just demonstrating how applying a supernatural cause to something unexplainable at the time is synonymous with giving up (in a scientific sense, of course).

HijackedTw1light wrote:

Science observes and explains natural phenomena, based on knowledge of the laws of the universe. Science does not, however, observe and explain the laws of the universe. It presupposes those laws.

Well, law differs from a scientific theory in that it does not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: it is merely a distillation of the results of repeated observation. No disagreement there.

While the law lets us calculate quite a bit about what happens, notice that it does not tell us anything about why it happens. That is what theories are for. In the language of science, the word "theory" is used to describe an explanation of why and how things happen.

Just remember that gravity, for example, is both a law and a theory.

HijackedTw1light wrote:

The fine-tuned universe idea does not stipulate that ours is the only possible form of life, only that life-permitting universes are exceedingly rare.

Now, if we live in a multiverse that is infinite, which we do not know if we do or not, then how could we call a life-permitting universe "rare" as it would exist in endless infinities??

Or maybe universes can only exist in the form we see today, and are exceedingly exactly like ours as it is the only one that can possibly exist. If 100% of universes are just like ours, then ours is not rare.

Anyways, it's all very interesting subject matter. I try to take the absolute skeptic / cautious / scientific approach to these kinds of things, although it is sometimes fun to speculate.

Junior

Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye

Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2011 7:37 am Post subject:

Underwaterbob wrote:

Anyhow, it turns out he obtained the bones, that were part of a museum display and had been treated with preservatives, under false pretenses in the first place. Does this person sound trustworthy?

Wether he obtained the bones honestly or not does not change the fact that your henchmen ridiculously mis-dated a dino bone.
The fact that he would have been denied permission if he had asked for the bones just demonstrates the instinctive ongoing cover-up."Don't let that creationist get hold of the bones, he might discover the fact that our dating methods are bollox".

Quote:

How about the fact that carbon dating is known to only be reliable up to 40'000 years, and totally useless for dating anything older, like the dinosaur bones in question?

Isn't that convenient now.
They've arbitrarily set the applicable date so far back to ensure they can't be proven wrong by testing recent things.
They have no evidence that the earth is as old as 40.000 years, it is an assumption once again. So is their unwarranted assumpton that dinosaurs existed 65 million years ago.We recently found dinosaur bone with blood cells and pliable soft tissue. I hardly think they're 65 mya.

Underwaterbob wrote:

Junior wrote:

Any article that states:

Quote:

However, we know the date can�t be right, because it conflicts with Biblical chronology.

automatically loses any and all scientific credibility.

You can't play the ball so then you attack the man.
Isn't that typical of evo-lootionists. At the sight of contrary evidence they simply pull out any of their dozens of timeworn excuses from the bag.

Underwaterbob wrote:

I read your sources, now here's one for you:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dalrymple/radiometric_dating.html

An excerpt:

Quote:

Excuses excuses. We're not talking one wristwatch here, its more of a truckload. Every time your guys age something where they are not told the expected age beforehand, they make a massive gaffe. How do you explain this exactly?

Quote:

edited 4 times in total

No kidding.

HijackedTw1light

Joined: 24 May 2010
Location: Daegu

Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2011 7:56 am Post subject:

brento1138 wrote:

HijackedTw1light wrote:

I wasn't asking you to swat them down, or even wondering if you would. I thought it might be interesting for you to read, though.

You may be surprised to hear this, but those objections to fine tuning were ones I'd heard before.

And you may be even more surprised to hear this next part, but I can get Wikipedia on my computer, too.

It might be nice if you spent less effort trying to "educate" us and more effort talking to the point.

To be fair, you were more concise and focused in this last post, so that was nice.

brento1138 wrote:

Sure. But except for the speed of light thing which hasn't been confirmed, those difficulties are in cutting-edge theories in development, not established working models. It's misleading if you are suggesting they are problems with physics as a whole. In every scientific field there are blind spots and further areas of inquiry, but physics is still precise and qualitative compared to the life sciences. I won't ask you to bow your head lower to physics than to biology if you don't want to, but you seemed to want to deny that theoretical physicists can draw the conclusions they say they can. It's largely the work of theoretical physics which has shed light on the apparent fine-tuning.

brento1138 wrote:

Now, if we live in a multiverse that is infinite, which we do not know if we do or not, then how could we call a life-permitting universe "rare" as it would exist in endless infinities??

You're acting like I accepted the infinite multiverse so now you have the right to grill me on a contradiction. I'm skeptical about the multiverse. But obviously, if it was true, "rare" could not have any real meaning in reference to number, only to percentage frequency.

brento1138 wrote:

Or maybe universes can only exist in the form we see today, and are exceedingly exactly like ours as it is the only one that can possibly exist. If 100% of universes are just like ours, then ours is not rare.

Aha. You're combining two explanations for the fine-tuning in one. The "necessity" plus the "multiverse."

Based on what I've read, I don't think the "necessity" explanation is realistic, though we probably can't completely rule it out yet. The infinite multiverse seems more feasible, at least in theory, though I'm not sure it passes the bar test. You know the bar test, right? Something you can say with a straight face to a stranger in a bar. It might fail around the part you start talking about the infinite Brentos and Hijacked typing away in infinite universes.

Anyway, I'm just kidding about the bar test. Kind of. Except not really.

brento1138 wrote:

Anyways, it's all very interesting subject matter. I try to take the absolute skeptic / cautious / scientific approach to these kinds of things, although it is sometimes fun to speculate.

Okay. Peace be with you.

Junior

Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye

Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2011 8:43 am Post subject:

Brento wrote:

This is simply the argument from incredulity.It's a logical fallacy that essentially relies on a lack of imagination from its user.

Which is exactly what you use to deny the possibility of the creator.
Science should not rely on a big imagination but on undeniable, testable, observable fact. So you finally admit that all you have is an imaginary fairytale.

Quote:

Proponents of Intelligent Design are judging that molecules, life on Earth, are too complex to have been produced by evolutionary processes. But the judgment is not subject to experimental test.

Yes it is. if you remove one enzyme from the many that produce blood-clotting then the whole process fails. So we can say with certainty that the blood-clotting system is irreducibly complex. If you remove any one of its component parts, the whole cannot function.
Humans would not have survived if their blood only "half-clotted", they would have bled to death every time they stubbed their toe.
But there are numerous examples of irreducibly complex systems that could not have "evolved", nor do evolutionist have any explanations for how they could have. They had to be created fully formed, with all their elements in place, for them to work. Just look at haemophiliacs or other deformed victims of mutation.

Quote:

If you are not testing hypotheses and doing research and publishing it, you are not a scientist.

But creationists do so.

Quote:

For over 40 years, ICR has been the leader in scientific research from a biblical perspective, conducting innovative laboratory and field research in the major disciplines of science
http://www.icr.org/research/

So how are you going to shift the goalposts now? Do creationists have to wear the right colour T-shirts to be worthy of your accreditation?

Quote:

Although they are different measurements of the same thing, they are the same process. You just don't accept one of them. It's the same as saying you can add up to ten, by adding up 1 plus 1 plus 1 etc. But you are saying it is impossible to add up to 100,

No its more a case you of you claiming that if you can balance five bricks on top of eachother, then you can make a tower to the moon.
Genetic material is limited within any one individual organism and there are no ways for it to make new and novel dna. There is no way for your single cel to acquire vast amounts of new genetic material to become a whale.
If you think there is, then demonstrate it.

Quote:

You lose credibility when you talk like that. Scientific knowledge is the exact opposite of propaganda.

Propoganda is the widescale repetition of false information for political gain.
Its hard to find a more perfect definition for evolutionism. How else do you explain your repeated grandiose media headlines which present as truth things which lack evidence and are only conjectured by agenda-driven evolutionists? or the fact that you do not retract such information when it is proven false?
By the way , for the 100th, time, I have no problem with scientific knowledge, only fake data pretending to be scientific fact. Science would be in a sorry state without christendom.
Under your watch and that of your fellow evolutionists it is quickly degenerating backwards into corrupt practise.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 29, 30, 31 ... 43, 44, 45 Next
Page 30 of 45

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

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe