Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

Shirakawasuna wrote:

real life wrote:
It appears that the word 'theoretical' is applied to lend (unearned) credibility to something which is in fact, speculation.

After all, it would be harder to land a grant for something labeled 'Speculation'.

Like I keep saying, it's best not to parade your ignorance around, especially in the form of projection. The people bestowing grants know precisely what theoretical means.

The hypothesis formation process is absolutely required for science and can be particularly demanding in physics.

I have no problem labeling these things 'hypotheses'.

But to attach the implication of 'theory' to speculative ideas that have NO evidence to support them is more than a bit dishonest.

Of course those receiving and (at least some of) those bestowing grants understand what the implication of theoretical (in this context) is.

They use the word to cover their own behind as well as the tail of those receiving the money, because it would be hard to defend the practice of giving money to 'Speculation' in front of an enquiring Board of Directors, or large donors to an institution, or to the general public if it's a public university.

0 Replies

Quote:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Nation wrote:

Quote:
What is the Creationist thinking as to the Origins of Species? Where do species come from?

Joe(let's hear it)Nation

Real Life Replied-
well, since we haven't been able to get a straight answer as to what constitutes a species, that's difficult to answer.

It's difficult for Creationism to explain the Origins of Species?? I would think the answer would be obvious and easy to explain.

Joe(Isn't it?)Nation

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

Quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Nation wrote:

Quote:
What is the Creationist thinking as to the Origins of Species? Where do species come from?

Joe(let's hear it)Nation

Real Life Replied-
well, since we haven't been able to get a straight answer as to what constitutes a species, that's difficult to answer.

It's difficult for Creationism to explain the Origins of Species?? I would think the answer would be obvious and easy to explain.

Joe(Isn't it?)Nation

'Species' is an arbitrary term. Evolutionists don't even use a consistent definition , and the term is useless without a definition.

The creation explanation makes no reference to the fairly modern term 'species'.

Now use your own definition, and be honest Joe, if a member of 'species' X gave birth to the very first member of 'species' Y, how is the family line of species Y going to continue if there is not another Y to breed with?

Or does the new species 'Y' become established because MANY new Ys are all born at once? Laughing

0 Replies

Why are you talking about "species" real life?

Shouldn't you be giving us evidence of creationism?

Oh.. that's right.. This is what you always do. Deflect from the topic of the thread then blame it on others.

Your chance to get on topic here real life. You have no excuse to not be on topic.

0 Replies

So you're now the Topic Police, eh Distraction Boy?

Does that mean I should now ignore all your questions about the Flood?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Where have I said or implied that I equate two such divergent views?

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
Creation addresses the origin of all things. Not the subsequent actions of all things.

Fine. So what does Creationism address in your view?

uh, well ros........

Creationism addresses........................................creation

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Well, have you ever read Genesis 1? It covers the origin of the cosmos, of living things (plant and animal), of man.

Ok, so you see each event as a separate creation event caused directly by the intervention of god exactly as a literal interpretation of genesis.

Yet a literal interpretation of genesis is in direct conflict with the evidence for the physical age of the Universe as well as the growth and change of the Universe over billions of years. How do you explain that?

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
Where have I said or implied that I equate two such divergent views?

real life wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
Creation addresses the origin of all things. Not the subsequent actions of all things.

Fine. So what does Creationism address in your view?

uh, well ros........

Creationism addresses........................................creation

You are reading between lines that aren't there, friend.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
Well, have you ever read Genesis 1? It covers the origin of the cosmos, of living things (plant and animal), of man.

Ok, so you see each event as a separate creation event caused directly by the intervention of god exactly as a literal interpretation of genesis.

Yet a literal interpretation of genesis is in direct conflict with the evidence for the physical age of the Universe as well as the growth and change of the Universe over billions of years. How do you explain that?

Specify what evidence you are referring to , rosborne.

Are you drawing inferences from circumstantial evidence to support your view that the Universe is 'old' as you say it is?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Shirakawasuna wrote:
real life wrote:
It appears that the word 'theoretical' is applied to lend (unearned) credibility to something which is in fact, speculation.

After all, it would be harder to land a grant for something labeled 'Speculation'. Laughing

Like I keep saying, it's best not to parade your ignorance around, especially in the form of projection. The people bestowing grants know precisely what theoretical means.

The hypothesis formation process is absolutely required for science and can be particularly demanding in physics.

I have no problem labeling these things 'hypotheses'.

But to attach the implication of 'theory' to speculative ideas that have NO evidence to support them is more than a bit dishonest.

Hmm, I think it's pretty apparent that it's too much to ask that you show some humility in your statements and simply stop making ignorant comments related to science. Yet again I have assumed too much of your familiarity with the topic.

In theoretical physics, for example, forming a hypothesis requires visiting gobs of data and knowledge, experiments, math, etc, and attempting to come up with unifying explanations that will lead to new data formation and explanation. It's not speculation as in, 'hey lookee there, I wonder if that truck is heading to a store'. Remember that this applies to situations in which predictions have not been made or confirmed (the explanations can still be based on rigorous understanding and often lead to new knowledge).

Now let's see what your response says, in light of this.

real life wrote:

I have no problem labeling these things 'hypotheses'.

Well, what I wrote was that what I described was the process of forming hypotheses, which is a very important distinction. It's the difference between String Theory twenty years ago and String Theory today which has actual specific predictions which the LHC will confirm or refute. It's a little more complex than that, but since we're having such massive issues with me explaining nuances and you misinterpreting them, we'll leave it there.

real life wrote:

But to attach the implication of 'theory' to speculative ideas that have NO evidence to support them is more than a bit dishonest.

I can't help but think you're talking about the Big Bang, which is a Theory (big t), as in a general hypothesis drawing from many other forms of data, models, hypotheses, etc, all confirmed. Not only that, but the model is very predictive, you can find the confirmed predictions just by checking Wikipedia. Huge difference between that and a hypothesis-forming process, although they are codependent.

You seem to want to dissociate the singularity from the Big Bang, but right now you simply can't and there is indirect evidence for it as the Big Bang is repeatedly confirmed by observations. The open, honest, and accurate description of the singularity is: the state of the universe before the Big Bang, implied from the Big Bang model, but for which there is no direct observational evidence. That's it. If you can manage to keep that in mind when discussing this, you'll do a service to yourself and others.

real life wrote:

Of course those receiving and (at least some of) those bestowing grants understand what the implication of theoretical (in this context) is.

They use the word to cover their own behind as well as the tail of those receiving the money, because it would be hard to defend the practice of giving money to 'Speculation' in front of an enquiring Board of Directors, or large donors to an institution, or to the general public if it's a public university.

I'll refer you to my above explanation of this 'speculation'. The hypothesis-forming process is absolutely integral to the scientific method and is not some crapshoot. You would not have that handy computer you're using to type these messages if it were not for theoretical physics, chemistry, etc. I think it's time that you spent some time familiarizing yourself with scientific concepts before you go around criticizing them.

So, whatever happened to the cosmological argument and your evidence for creation?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Specify what evidence you are referring to , rosborne.

Are you drawing inferences from circumstantial evidence to support your view that the Universe is 'old' as you say it is?

Of course. That's what science does. Why, does that bother you? Do you have a better suggestion for how we should develop scientific theories?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
Where have I said or implied that I equate two such divergent views?

real life wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
Creation addresses the origin of all things. Not the subsequent actions of all things.

Fine. So what does Creationism address in your view?

uh, well ros........

Creationism addresses........................................creation

You are reading between lines that aren't there, friend.

When you put a whole bunch of ellipsis in a sentence, it pretty much instructs the reader to read between the lines. So what did you expect.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
Specify what evidence you are referring to , rosborne.

Are you drawing inferences from circumstantial evidence to support your view that the Universe is 'old' as you say it is?

Of course. That's what science does. Why, does that bother you? Do you have a better suggestion for how we should develop scientific theories?

As long as you clearly state that your conclusions are actually only inferences based on circumstantial evidence, it doesn't bother me at all.

So, specifically what circumstantial evidence have you interpreted to support the idea of an 'old' universe?

Don't post a laundry list. Give one example at a time in order to foster discussion.

What do you consider THE strongest piece of evidence that indicates the universe is 'old' ?

0 Replies

Now, apparently, we're supposed to read "real life's" mind (no thanks, i don't do comic books). First, he responds to Neo with this:

real life wrote:

neologist wrote:
This is a tedious thread.

Yes, it is, when even details like who said what have to be restated time and again.

see above

The "see above" portion referred to a response of his to my post:

real life wrote:

Setanta wrote:
real life wrote:

The claim that empirical evidence refutes creation is pure fiction.

Additionally, Ros did not directly state that empirical evidence refutes creation

The quote, as I previously indicated, was from farmerman, not rosborne.

farmerman wrote:
EVerything in Creationism and or ID has been shown to be refuted by objective empirical evidence AT LEAST ONCE

Now, the post to which i objected on his part is given below:

real life wrote:

Ros' verbal sleight of hand didn't go unnoticed. I called him on it.

That CMBR is the result of a BB is an inference[/u].

The claim that empirical evidence[/u] refutes creation is pure fiction.

Where did CMBR come from ? We don't know. It is inferred[/u] to be the remains of a singularity.

Interestingly, depending on who you talk to, the singularity either was or wasn't composed of the kind of energy which would be subject our universe's physical laws , but CMBR definitely IS energy which IS subject to our physical laws.

But since BB wasn't observed, CMBR cannot be said to be empirical evidence[/u] of that unseen event.

So, "real life," responding to me, refers to Ros' post, and then (so it seems he claims now) shifts gears long enough to respond to FM, but without naming him, without attribution, and then goes right back to a failed attempt to critique what Ros wrote.

If anything makes this thread tedious, it is trying to figure out just what the hell "real life" is on about, since he rarely expresses himself coherently. Usually, that is just because he doesn't know what the Hell he's talking about. And then there are cases such as this, in which he elliptically addresses someone else's remark without attribution, making his rather dull and confused prose even more opaque.

If you're responding to what FM writes, "real life," it helps if you let us know that, especially if you're going to sandwich that response between responses to some other member.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Now, apparently, we're supposed to read "real life's" mind (no thanks, i don't do comic books). First, he responds to Neo with this:

real life wrote:
neologist wrote:
This is a tedious thread.

Yes, it is, when even details like who said what have to be restated time and again.

see above

The "see above" portion referred to a response of his to my post:

real life wrote:
Setanta wrote:
real life wrote:

The claim that empirical evidence refutes creation is pure fiction.

Additionally, Ros did not directly state that empirical evidence refutes creation

The quote, as I previously indicated, was from farmerman, not rosborne.

farmerman wrote:
EVerything in Creationism and or ID has been shown to be refuted by objective empirical evidence AT LEAST ONCE

Now, the post to which i objected on his part is given below:

real life wrote:
Ros' verbal sleight of hand didn't go unnoticed. I called him on it.

That CMBR is the result of a BB is an inference[/u].

The claim that empirical evidence[/u] refutes creation is pure fiction.

Where did CMBR come from ? We don't know. It is inferred[/u] to be the remains of a singularity.

Interestingly, depending on who you talk to, the singularity either was or wasn't composed of the kind of energy which would be subject our universe's physical laws , but CMBR definitely IS energy which IS subject to our physical laws.

But since BB wasn't observed, CMBR cannot be said to be empirical evidence[/u] of that unseen event.

So, "real life," responding to me, refers to Ros' post, and then (so it seems he claims now) shifts gears long enough to respond to FM, but without naming him, without attribution, and then goes right back to a failed attempt to critique what Ros wrote.

If anything makes this thread tedious, it is trying to figure out just what the hell "real life" is on about, since he rarely expresses himself coherently. Usually, that is just because he doesn't know what the Hell he's talking about. And then there are cases such as this, in which he elliptically addresses someone else's remark without attribution, making his rather dull and confused prose even more opaque.

If you're responding to what FM writes, "real life," it helps if you let us know that, especially if you're going to sandwich that response between responses to some other member.

sorry about that

my fault for being in a hurry

the post is poorly written, no fault of yours for misreading it

I had previously quoted that specific section of fm's statement, but assumed when I referred to it again that others would know I had singled it out and quoted it.

bad assumption

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Joe Nation wrote:
What is the Creationist thinking as to the Origins of Species? Where do species come from?

Joe(let's hear it)Nation

well, since we haven't been able to get a straight answer as to what constitutes a species, that's difficult to answer.

if you accept that a species is:

(n) species ((biology) taxonomic group whose members can interbreed)

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=species

then it is obvious that evolution faces some tough sledding.

As soon as an organism in species X gives birth to the first member of species Y, the family line for Y is doomed if he has no one to interbreed with.

If he can still interbreed with X, then he's not really a 'new species'.

This is one of the prime reasons why such threads get tedious. Both FM and i have literally spent pages explaining that speciation involves sexual isolation as a more significant factor than whether or not members of two species can successfully interbreed.

You can explain things to "real life" again and again, but he's basically dishonest. As soon as he can introduce one of his red herrings into a discussion, in which the details of the particular pungent herring have not previously appeared, he will do so, without regard to the fact that his bullshit has previously been refuted.

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species#Definitions_of_species][b]Wikipedia[/b][/url] wrote:

Biological / Isolation species

A set of actually or potentially interbreeding populations. This is generally a useful formulation for scientists working with living examples of the higher taxa like mammals, fish, and birds, but meaningless for organisms that do not reproduce sexually. It does not distinguish between the theoretical possibility of interbreeding and the actual likelihood of gene flow between populations and is thus impractical in instances of allopatric (geographically isolated) populations. The results of breeding experiments done in artificial conditions may or may not reflect what would happen if the same organisms encountered each other in the wild, making it difficult to gauge whether or not the results of such experiments are meaningful in reference to natural populations. (emphasis added)

As this has been explained to "real life" time and again, the fact that he brings up this red herring, attempting to suggest this is a valid objection to a theory of evolution, is evidence of his basic dishonesty.

It is also dishonest (or a simple case of scientific hebetude on the part of "real life") because it does not take into account cells which reproduce by mitosis or parthenogensis. Finally, of course, it ignores that these are artificial definitions imposed upon the natural world by people attempting to understand that natural world, and bear no resemblance to scientific "laws" such as the "laws" of thermodynamics, or other statements from the investigation of physics.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

the post is poorly written, no fault of yours for misreading it

Yes, it was poorly written . . . but i did not "misread" it, you "miswrote" it. You respond to something which Ros wrote, then you interjected a response to what FM wrote, then you follow that immediately with responses which patently refer to what Ros wrote. Dropping in the comment about what FM wrote, without attribution was not simply a bad assumption that others are going to follow your abstruse and opaque thought processes--there is no reason for anyone here to assume anything about what you infer or imply from what your interlocutors write. Your "apology" here is "left-handed," it attempts to slyly suggest that had i more carefully followed the sequence of your responses, i'd have been able to read your mind and know that you were responding to FM's remark, and not attributing to Ros something he did not write.

Like i said, i don't read minds.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

real life wrote:
Joe Nation wrote:
What is the Creationist thinking as to the Origins of Species? Where do species come from?

Joe(let's hear it)Nation

well, since we haven't been able to get a straight answer as to what constitutes a species, that's difficult to answer.

if you accept that a species is:

(n) species ((biology) taxonomic group whose members can interbreed)

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=species

then it is obvious that evolution faces some tough sledding.

As soon as an organism in species X gives birth to the first member of species Y, the family line for Y is doomed if he has no one to interbreed with.

If he can still interbreed with X, then he's not really a 'new species'.

This is one of the prime reasons why such threads get tedious. Both FM and i have literally spent pages explaining that speciation involves sexual isolation as a more significant factor than whether or not members of two species can successfully interbreed.

The question of definition is one of where to draw the line.

If a group of organisms is 'isolated' from the larger population, at what point , or after manifesting what characteristic (or combination of characteristics) are they a 'new species'? that is the issue.

Does the mere fact of their geographical separation make them a new species? No.

The most commonly agreed upon distinguishing characteristic is the ability to interbreed ( and I assume when we discuss this that the context makes it clear we are referring to organisms that reproduce sexually. Because if 'evolution' doesn't occur among these organisms , it doesn't occur at all. Agreed?)

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Does the mere fact of their geographical separation make them a new species? No.

This is a false statement, and, in fact, biologists use sexual isolation as a means of distinguishing species--such as the blue heron of the "new world" and the gray heron of the "old world." It is entirely possible that they could successfully produce reproductively viable offspring, although no one knows for certain, since it hasn't been attempted. Their isolation from any naturally occurring attempt to produce reproductively viable offspring is the criterion for distinguishing them as separate species.

Quote:

The most commonly agreed upon distinguishing characteristic is the ability to interbreed . . .

This is also false, and for precisely the reason that there are species which reproduce by mitosis or by parthenogenesis. The term species is a term of convenience--it is not and never has been considered to be anything in the character of a scientific law. Darwin himself wrote: "I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given for the sake of convenience to a set of individuals closely resembling each other." It has never been anything other than an arbitrary term, but you are trying to make it out to be a failure of a theory of evolution.

Quote:

( and I assume when we discuss this that the context makes it clear we are referring to organisms that reproduce sexually. Because if 'evolution' doesn't occur among these organisms, it doesn't occur at all. Agreed?)

There is no plausible basis upon which to assume that evolution does not occur among populations which can interbreed successfully, but which happen to be sexually isolated. Speciation would probably occur, eventually, since the geographical isolation would imply that they would not subsequently interbreed, thereby "blending" their genomes. But there is no reason to assume that they would not be able to produce reproductively viable offspring. The example of the cross between a grizzly bear and a polar is a good example. Now, it so happens that as the bear was killed, we don't know if it were reproductively viable. But the point is that there had not been sufficient genetic divergence between grizzly bears and polar bears to preclude the production of offspring. The determinant matter of whether or not that offspring were reproductively viable is meaningless in the definition of species based on sexual isolation due to geographic separation.

********************************************
And, of course, none of this answers the question of the thread.

What proof do you offer for creationism?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

real life wrote:
Does the mere fact of their geographical separation make them a new species? No.

This is a false statement, and, in fact, biologists use sexual isolation as a means of distinguishing species--such as the blue heron of the "new world" and the gray heron of the "old world." It is entirely possible that they could successfully produce reproductively viable offspring, although no one knows for certain, since it hasn't been attempted. Their isolation from any naturally occurring attempt to produce reproductively viable offspring is the criterion for distinguishing them as separate species.

So, 2000 years ago when American Indians and black Africans were geographically separated from any naturally occurring attempt to reproduce ......................

.............were these two groups of humans 'separate species'?

0 Replies

Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know