Debunking the Intelligent Design argument?

Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
User avatar
AttentionKMartShoppers
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2163
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:37 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Location: Austin, Texas
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time
Contact:

#61

Post by AttentionKMartShoppers » Tue Oct 04, 2005 8:04 pm

But the facts do show that all life appears to be interrelated and have radiated from a common source. That is the evolutionary theory.

Evolution is a scientific theory of the origin of species of plants and animals. It is a science to explain the diversity and distribution of life on earth.
No...and no.

And you do know who Haekel is right? I've spelled his names two ways haven't I
"My actions prove that God takes care of idiots."

He occasionally stumbled over the truth, but hastily picked himself up and hurried on as if nothing had happened.
- On Stanley Baldwin

-Winston Churchill

An atheist can't find God for the same reason a criminal can't find a police officer.

You need to start asking out girls so that you can get used to the rejections.
-Anonymous

User avatar
BGoodForGoodSake
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2125
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
Christian: No
Location: Washington D.C.
Has liked: 28 times
Been liked: 12 times

#62

Post by BGoodForGoodSake » Tue Oct 04, 2005 8:11 pm

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:
But the facts do show that all life appears to be interrelated and have radiated from a common source. That is the evolutionary theory.

Evolution is a scientific theory of the origin of species of plants and animals. It is a science to explain the diversity and distribution of life on earth.
No...and no.

And you do know who Haekel is right? I've spelled his names two ways haven't I
You disagree with the definition of evolution?

Yes I do the law of recapitulation. And it is incorrect.
It supposed that phylogeny was directly related to ontogeny.
However, there is a relationship between the two, as I stated in our PM.
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Jbuza
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1213
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 5:26 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#63

Post by Jbuza » Tue Oct 04, 2005 8:47 pm

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: I will repeat, Evolution does not say God does not exist.

Maybe this is why you say evolution is not a scientific theory.

And I don't laugh at creation or ID.
=(

What are we arguing about?
Evolution and Creation are both scientific theories, they both explain the same observations. It is this attitude that says that evolution is science, that it is an answered question that I object to.

Sorry for assuming your reaction to ID, I probably just got carried away. I thought that you were trying to debunk the validity of ID or creation as a viable alternative to evolution, and I was defending that these theories can also explain and guide observations.

User avatar
BGoodForGoodSake
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2125
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
Christian: No
Location: Washington D.C.
Has liked: 28 times
Been liked: 12 times

#64

Post by BGoodForGoodSake » Wed Oct 05, 2005 6:58 am

Jbuza wrote:
BGoodForGoodSake wrote: I will repeat, Evolution does not say God does not exist.

Maybe this is why you say evolution is not a scientific theory.

And I don't laugh at creation or ID.
=(

What are we arguing about?
Evolution and Creation are both scientific theories, they both explain the same observations. It is this attitude that says that evolution is science, that it is an answered question that I object to.

Sorry for assuming your reaction to ID, I probably just got carried away. I thought that you were trying to debunk the validity of ID or creation as a viable alternative to evolution, and I was defending that these theories can also explain and guide observations.
It's ok
=)

But you have to realize my objection is to calling Creation a scientific theory.
It's not a science its a worldview.
The scientific method was not practiced until 1700 years after the advent of Christianity.

Creation does not systematically go through the possibilities. Some of the outcomes are pre-determined. This alone makes it a non-science.
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Jbuza
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1213
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 5:26 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#65

Post by Jbuza » Wed Oct 05, 2005 5:26 pm

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: But you have to realize my objection is to calling Creation a scientific theory.
It's not a science its a worldview.
The scientific method was not practiced until 1700 years after the advent of Christianity.

Creation does not systematically go through the possibilities. Some of the outcomes are pre-determined. This alone makes it a non-science.
I agree to part of what your are saying, It is the very same argument that I make that evolution is not science. Neither creation or evolution are science, they are explanations about science. A theory doesn't need to go through the possibilities, whatever that means, it is simply a tool to explain observations and guide observations. You show your hand by saying that Creation is a worldview, and failing to admit that evolution is also a worldview, this is biased.

The outcomes are what they are, they are the observations, they are the workings of the universe, they are the measurments, they are the same knowledge that is science reguardless of what theoretical, dare I say framework, explanation of origins you happen to believe is true. Your statements about going through the possibilities and predetermined outcomes are bogus, they are no more true then they are with evolution. IT is so bad with evolution that the gap in knowledge, i.e. the missing links have been determined to be filled with the answers that validate evolution. A predetermination that evolution is true creates this philosophy within science that censors and ridicules my theory of creation, what is this, how can science say that I can't use a hypothetical postition that creation is true to explain why things are as they are, and to guide my observations. MY theory works, and explains things that evolution reliably ignores and skips--the hard questions

Logic, reason, and the deductive and inductive processes that science stand on are as old as Man, and this culture within science that says, "no, no you can't use creation as a hypothesis is junk science. IT is truly a scientific theory, and it makes me sad to see this fascistic control within science that taints and biases trying to force out anything that isn't the party line. IT is junk, get past it and step into the arena of ideas.

User avatar
BGoodForGoodSake
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2125
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
Christian: No
Location: Washington D.C.
Has liked: 28 times
Been liked: 12 times

#66

Post by BGoodForGoodSake » Wed Oct 05, 2005 9:14 pm

Jbuza wrote:
BGoodForGoodSake wrote: But you have to realize my objection is to calling Creation a scientific theory.
It's not a science its a worldview.
The scientific method was not practiced until 1700 years after the advent of Christianity.

Creation does not systematically go through the possibilities. Some of the outcomes are pre-determined. This alone makes it a non-science.
I agree to part of what your are saying, It is the very same argument that I make that evolution is not science. Neither creation or evolution are science, they are explanations about science. A theory doesn't need to go through the possibilities, whatever that means, it is simply a tool to explain observations and guide observations. You show your hand by saying that Creation is a worldview, and failing to admit that evolution is also a worldview, this is biased.

The outcomes are what they are, they are the observations, they are the workings of the universe, they are the measurments, they are the same knowledge that is science reguardless of what theoretical, dare I say framework, explanation of origins you happen to believe is true. Your statements about going through the possibilities and predetermined outcomes are bogus, they are no more true then they are with evolution. IT is so bad with evolution that the gap in knowledge, i.e. the missing links have been determined to be filled with the answers that validate evolution. A predetermination that evolution is true creates this philosophy within science that censors and ridicules my theory of creation, what is this, how can science say that I can't use a hypothetical postition that creation is true to explain why things are as they are, and to guide my observations. MY theory works, and explains things that evolution reliably ignores and skips--the hard questions

Logic, reason, and the deductive and inductive processes that science stand on are as old as Man, and this culture within science that says, "no, no you can't use creation as a hypothesis is junk science. IT is truly a scientific theory, and it makes me sad to see this fascistic control within science that taints and biases trying to force out anything that isn't the party line. IT is junk, get past it and step into the arena of ideas.
Can you explain how creation is more than a hypothesis or a world view?
And could you elaborate on what evolution ignores or skips?
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Jbuza
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1213
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 5:26 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#67

Post by Jbuza » Thu Oct 06, 2005 11:05 am

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: Can you explain how creation is more than a hypothesis or a world view?
And could you elaborate on what evolution ignores or skips?
Sure. Creation, as was evolution, was a simple hypotheses baised on a beleif of how things are. That is how any idea comes to be really speculation and conjecture.

Once a person applies there unique abilities of logic and reason and begins to explain and predict what will be observed, measured, or discovered, then the conjectured idea moves into the realm of scientific investigation, and should seek to explore alternative theories that describe the same events. This is were I think science today lacks. There should be an open attitude that allows ideas to be researched and discovered through any theory or hypothesis. The culture that exists within science that evolution is fact, limits certian explanations of investigation or predictions. History has shown us that certian conjectered beleifs about a manner of observations were rediculed and inhibited mans unique ability to discover and reason.

To start with a couple.

How is it possible that recorded history indicates less species, why are animals going extinct instead of a history of new and exciting species? We have a fossil record of lots of species that no longer exist. Mind you your theoretical framwork will not lead to the same explanation or predictions about future new species or cases of extinction.

How are the greatest adaptive traits that are evident in man, and his marvelous creations, not apparent in more organisms? If these traits are so adaptive, natural selection should have caused these desirable traits to exist in more examples. Mind you the guidance that you receive from the theoretical explanation may lead you to beleive that Logic and Reason are simple DNA sequences. My theoeritcal explanations lead me to predict that these qualities are unique to man in spite of the fact that species exist that share an enormous similarity in DNA.

As far as ignoring things evolution seems to be ignoring other explanations, in fact the UCLA is trying to enforce that monopoly on independant thought, and the theory claims to have all answers within itself. Creation is rediculed, even those in favour of it are trying to be sly by talking about intelligent design. IT has gained a life of its own with ideals not unlike the fascist and atheitic ideals that fear freedom of thought and expression. For me it is this attitude that has become associeted within evolution that discourages the free exchange of ideas were many worthwhile idea have come.

User avatar
AttentionKMartShoppers
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2163
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:37 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Location: Austin, Texas
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time
Contact:

#68

Post by AttentionKMartShoppers » Thu Oct 06, 2005 3:59 pm

BGood, I'd also like to ask you how evolution is anywhere near being a theory, or even a good hypothesis? Many discoveries have altered the theory of evolution-but very few, if any, have been predicted by evolution.
"My actions prove that God takes care of idiots."

He occasionally stumbled over the truth, but hastily picked himself up and hurried on as if nothing had happened.
- On Stanley Baldwin

-Winston Churchill

An atheist can't find God for the same reason a criminal can't find a police officer.

You need to start asking out girls so that you can get used to the rejections.
-Anonymous

User avatar
BGoodForGoodSake
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2125
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
Christian: No
Location: Washington D.C.
Has liked: 28 times
Been liked: 12 times

#69

Post by BGoodForGoodSake » Thu Oct 06, 2005 5:33 pm

Jbuza wrote:To start with a couple.

How is it possible that recorded history indicates less species, why are animals going extinct instead of a history of new and exciting species? We have a fossil record of lots of species that no longer exist. Mind you your theoretical framwork will not lead to the same explanation or predictions about future new species or cases of extinction.
You are overly simplifying the fossil record. There are more extinct forms than currently, this is true. But what you seem to be ignoring or unaware of is that all of these extinct forms did not all exist at the same time. Fossil forms appear throughout the entire timeline of the record. My question to you would be, does this indicate multiple creation events?

The introduction of new forms seems to be evidence of the formation of new species that you speak of. Speciation takes generations, you won't live long enough to notice.
Take the following analogy. Someone you live with and see everyday does not seem to change but someone who hasn't seen them in a long time notices the changes.

The great pyramids will one day be weathered away, but you won't see that happen in front of your eyes? Do you not agree?
How are the greatest adaptive traits that are evident in man, and his marvelous creations, not apparent in more organisms? If these traits are so adaptive, natural selection should have caused these desirable traits to exist in more examples. Mind you the guidance that you receive from the theoretical explanation may lead you to beleive that Logic and Reason are simple DNA sequences. My theoeritcal explanations lead me to predict that these qualities are unique to man in spite of the fact that species exist that share an enormous similarity in DNA.
The strength and speed of a lion is also impressive as well as the stealth and agility of an leopard. Each lineage(species) has a separate gene pool to work with. All I can say is what in the theory of evolution leads you to come to the conclusion that all lifeforms should evolve intelligence? I suggest you study the theory some more and return after you have some more knowledge on the subject.

In fact the idea that mutations are not directed should lead one to the conclusion that every species will be unique!
As far as ignoring things evolution seems to be ignoring other explanations, in fact the UCLA is trying to enforce that monopoly on independant thought, and the theory claims to have all answers within itself. Creation is rediculed, even those in favour of it are trying to be sly by talking about intelligent design. IT has gained a life of its own with ideals not unlike the fascist and atheitic ideals that fear freedom of thought and expression. For me it is this attitude that has become associeted within evolution that discourages the free exchange of ideas were many worthwhile idea have come.
I'm sorry I might have missed it, what facts are evolution ignoring?
Last edited by BGoodForGoodSake on Thu Oct 06, 2005 5:52 pm, edited 2 times in total.
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

User avatar
BGoodForGoodSake
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2125
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
Christian: No
Location: Washington D.C.
Has liked: 28 times
Been liked: 12 times

#70

Post by BGoodForGoodSake » Thu Oct 06, 2005 5:50 pm

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:BGood, I'd also like to ask you how evolution is anywhere near being a theory, or even a good hypothesis? Many discoveries have altered the theory of evolution-but very few, if any, have been predicted by evolution.
Definition
Evolution - All living things on Earth have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations.

This theory has not changed much since its inception and therefore has reached the status of scientific theory.

How to disprove this?
Show examples of abiogenesis.
Show examples of alternative life forms(alternative biochemistry).
Show that mutations do not occur, or are directed.

Other corrolarys and theories based on this do change. These are theories such as.

Birds evolved from dinosaurs.
Punctuated equilibrium.
Viral gene transferability.
Evolution of social insects.

Examples of predictability.
Biologically expensive features must afford some sort of breeding advantage.
Peacocks sexually selected for outrageous coloration.
Probiscus monkeys large nose selected for by females.

Evolution of sexual size demorphism.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/b ... 2/art00276

Due to the nature of mutations, one cannot predict which mutation will occur.

However H5N1 bird flu virus' ability to acheive human to human transmission is theorized, because it has happened in the past.
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Jbuza
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1213
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 5:26 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#71

Post by Jbuza » Thu Oct 06, 2005 8:30 pm

Bgood Wrote
You are overly simplifying the fossil record. There are more extinct forms than currently, this is true. But what you seem to be ignoring or unaware of is that all of these extinct forms did not all exist at the same time. Fossil forms appear throughout the entire timeline of the record. My question to you would be, does this indicate multiple creation events?


First I want to say that I appreciate the nice comment about the validity of my scientific standing by offering the simplest explanation that I can. The age of the earth has not been accepted into evidence, it is highly speculative, and widely unknown. The record and timeline that you speak of are hypotheses of your theory to explain the bones that evolutionists have dug up; they are not observations or tested predictions. What is your evidence that all the extinct forms did not exist at the same time? Interpretations about how fossilized remains are spread out and laid down, and about unseen past events, are explained differently by the two theories. I see no need to answer questions about creation events based on an untested hypothesis of timelines; the theory of creation doesn't necessarily include hypotheses derived from evolutionary theory.
___

Bgood Wrote
The introduction of new forms seems to be evidence of the formation of new species that you speak of. Speciation takes generations, you won't live long enough to notice.
Take the following analogy. Someone you live with and see everyday does not seem to change but someone who hasn't seen them in a long time notices the changes. The great pyramids will one day be weathered away, but you won't see that happen in front of your eyes? Do you not agree?


This is convenient for evolution and is non-evidence, merely defense of one of the mechanisms evolution uses to explain. I don't expect to see speciation from a creation theory. What introduction of new forms? The ones in the theoretical explanations of evolution? The theory of creation doesn't include the hypothetical underpinning of evolution that is speciation.

___

Bgood Wrote
The strength and speed of a lion is also impressive as well as the stealth and agility of an leopard. Each lineage(species) has a separate gene pool to work with. All I can say is what in the theory of evolution leads you to come to the conclusion that all lifeforms should evolve intelligence? I suggest you study the theory some more and return after you have some more knowledge on the subject. In fact the idea that mutations are not directed should lead one to the conclusion that every species will be unique!


Each lineage? Isn't the lineage common? Excluding logic and reason the most adaptive traits are in fact seen among many species. Where did logic and reason come from? Randomness? What is that essence that is most singular in man, and not apparent among the other hominids? But you see, I have knowledge on the subject, but the explanations and hypotheses are different; although the conclusion is the same. I also would predict that each species would be unique to a certian point. But man does indeed seem to be singular. The theory of creation explains this by hypothesizing that God formed man with His own hands and made him in His own unique image; creation doesn't indicate this is so of other species.

___

Jbuza Wrote
As far as ignoring things evolution seems to be ignoring other explanations, in fact the UCLA is trying to enforce that monopoly on independant thought, and the theory claims to have all answers within itself. Creation is rediculed, even those in favour of it are trying to be sly by talking about intelligent design. IT has gained a life of its own with ideals not unlike the fascist and atheitic ideals that fear freedom of thought and expression. For me it is this attitude that has become associeted within evolution that discourages the free exchange of ideas were many worthwhile idea have come.
Bgood Wrote
I'm sorry I might have missed it, what facts are evolution ignoring?


Four billion people believe in a creator.
A woman lifted a car off her pinned son.
Other theories have validity.

The response, that you responded to, was a response (LOL) pointing out the close mindedness of science. IT is this attitude that says, here we are truth, all other theories must disprove us in order to exist or offer any explanative or predictive value. This culture, that we can see ID trying to make inroads into, is keeping science from growing and promoting independent thought, it's sad.

User avatar
BGoodForGoodSake
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2125
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
Christian: No
Location: Washington D.C.
Has liked: 28 times
Been liked: 12 times

#72

Post by BGoodForGoodSake » Thu Oct 06, 2005 9:00 pm

Jbuza wrote: First I want to say that I appreciate the nice comment about the validity of my scientific standing by offering the simplest explanation that I can. The age of the earth has not been accepted into evidence, it is highly speculative, and widely unknown. The record and timeline that you speak of are hypotheses of your theory to explain the bones that evolutionists have dug up; they are not observations or tested predictions. What is your evidence that all the extinct forms did not exist at the same time? Interpretations about how fossilized remains are spread out and laid down, and about unseen past events, are explained differently by the two theories. I see no need to answer questions about creation events based on an untested hypothesis of timelines; the theory of creation doesn't necessarily include hypotheses derived from evolutionary theory.
This is a good point. So to respond I have a few questions. Are you aware that many of the sites of fossil discovery occur in stratified rock formation. Also organisms are found only in specific strata. In other words ancient trilobites are never found with whale bones. How does your theory account for this?
___
Jbuza wrote:This is convenient for evolution and is non-evidence, merely defense of one of the mechanisms evolution uses to explain. I don't expect to see speciation from a creation theory. What introduction of new forms? The ones in the theoretical explanations of evolution? The theory of creation doesn't include the hypothetical underpinning of evolution that is speciation.
Going back to the strata, newer strata seem to have new forms based on older forms. For example the seas were once dominated by arthopods.

In a later geological period the fossil record is now full of fish. Looking back through the earlier period one finds a primative fish.
How does your theory account for this?
___
Jbuza wrote:Each lineage? Isn't the lineage common?
No, once individuals are no longer sexually compatible the genetic pool is essentially cut off.
Jbuza wrote:Excluding logic and reason the most adaptive traits are in fact seen among many species. Where did logic and reason come from? Randomness? What is that essence that is most singular in man, and not apparent among the other hominids? But you see, I have knowledge on the subject, but the explanations and hypotheses are different; although the conclusion is the same. I also would predict that each species would be unique to a certian point. But man does indeed seem to be singular. The theory of creation explains this by hypothesizing that God formed man with His own hands and made him in His own unique image; creation doesn't indicate this is so of other species.
I see how it all fits together, but aside from your own beleifs what is your evidence. And how can it be deducted scientifically?
___
I'm sorry I might have missed it, what facts are evolution ignoring?
Jbuza wrote:Four billion people believe in a creator.
A woman lifted a car off her pinned son.
Other theories have validity.
I can assure you these four billion people do not subscribe to your particular beleifs.
An annecdote is not proof. It is a falacy of logic to extend a single example to a universal truth.
"A hotdog I ate made me sick, so all hotdogs are poisonous."
Other theories have validity, this may be so, but you haven't convinced me of the validity of yours.
Again what evidence is science ignoring?
Jbuza wrote:The response, that you responded to, was a response (LOL) pointing out the close mindedness of science. IT is this attitude that says, here we are truth, all other theories must disprove us in order to exist or offer any explanative or predictive value. This culture, that we can see ID trying to make inroads into, is keeping science from growing and promoting independent thought, it's sad.
You want your theory to be accepted by science? Do you admire the scientific method?
If you do then you are free to show the validity of your theory using the aforementioned method.
Otherwise it is not a science.
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Jbuza
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1213
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 5:26 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#73

Post by Jbuza » Fri Oct 07, 2005 12:07 am

Bgood wrote
This is a good point. So to respond I have a few questions. Are you aware that many of the sites of fossil discovery occur in stratified rock formation. Also organisms are found only in specific strata. In other words ancient trilobites are never found with whale bones. How does your theory account for this?


It is hard for me to determine how much of the evolutionary explanation for this arises from actual investigation and prediction, and how much of it is part of the hypothetical framework of evolution. Yes both theories would say that most fossil remains would be found in stratified rock. Trilobites being ancient is a construct of hypotheses within evolution, so I will leave that for now, but do believe it involves important observations that do involve some important topics. Further this hypothesis that fossils are found were the animals lived is most assuredly not a result of creationist theory, but it is observed that fossils are where they are.

Evolution explains strata and simple life forms in lower strata differently than creation. Scientific investigation and careful application of logic and reason have yielded two different explanations. Since you presumably know the evolution one, which while I believe it false, I will explain the hypothetical explanation of that observation from creation theory. I believe my opinion that evolution is false should not preclude people that believe it true from every advantage in careful application of logic and reason, including open discussion in the free arena of ideas.

First I will say what debunks evolutionary explanation of strata for me. I don't find it logical or reasonable, but perhaps my understanding of it is weaker than yours; which is normal you should be most famailier with your own theoretical and hypothetical explanations. So the position of evolution is that the simple life forms lived where they are found in low hypothetically ancient strata. As we move down the hypothetical record the DNA sequences evolve and life becomes more complex, etc etc etc. Now this happens throughout the hypothetical geological time periods. Were does the rock come from? Is new rock appearing throughout all of geological time? This is a serious shortcoming that evolution has not explained. Creation theory explains this.

Creation theory indicates that a recent global flood killed every living thing that wasn't rescued by God, I want to stop right here and say that I make no claim that what I say here is science, from a scientific investigative process this would be called hypothetical and theoretical explanation, but the observations that there are dead things encased in rock is science. While all theories can be science, they may not necessarily be true. While I claim it as truth for my own life, in the scientific arena it is theory; I think this is important. Once the world was flooded, which I know is a jump that does require explanation elsewhere, and the living matter and sediment were liquefied by the water moving mechanisms we observe today a process of stratification began. The apparent order of the world with respect to physical constants, gravitational attraction, density and sinking rates, and a host of other natural forces caused a sorting of the sediment once the waters began to recede. Consider the amount of pressure that that quantity of water has.

This explains where the rock came from and why there is a certain order to the fossil record. It also perfectly answers for the numerous “Geological Anomalies”. Evolution says species are found where they live, yet can't answer why trees, root and all, are found on mountains above the tree line. I think there are a couple of explanations for that in line with my theory

___
Bgood wrote
Going back to the strata, newer strata seem to have new forms based on older forms. For example the seas were once dominated by arthopods. In a later geological period the fossil record is now full of fish. Looking back through the earlier period one finds a primative fish. How does your theory account for this?


There is much hypothetical evolution in here (have new forms based on older forms, the seas were once dominated by arthopods, a later geological period, earlier period one finds a primative fish). My theory indicates that all these animals lived at the same time. Without the assumption that evolution created speciation and that conjecture about earth age your four sentences would read, “Strata have different forms”, try it. That's pretty much it, the rest is hypothetical frameworking of evolution not observation or prediction. Creation need not answer theoretical and hypothetical positions that evolution assumes, its job is to explain observations, predict outcomes, and stimulate discovery.

___
Bgood wrote
No, once individuals are no longer sexually compatible the genetic pool is essentially cut off.


Doesn't this mean that evolution would need to evolve two organisms with the same DNA that are cut off from the pool so they can create more of the speciated organism. This would require two organisms to have the same mutation at the same time. Since if one organism mutated to form the new species not capable of reproducing with his ancestors, than he would die off.
___
Bgood wrote
I see how it all fits together, but aside from your own beliefs what is your evidence. And how can it be deducted scientifically?

But how can I separate it from itself? IT starts with beliefs, it is speculation refined with observations and predictions and observations. It can't be deduced scientifically, it would only lead back to itself. That's what makes it a theory, it isn't the science, well it could be, but there is no proof for it. Science is the evidence, evolution and creation are the explanation. The careful use of logic, reason, and the truths of math are the deduction. You can form any hypothesis that you would like, and use these methods to test.
___
Bgood wrote
You want your theory to be accepted by science? Do you admire the scientific method?
If you do then you are free to show the validity of your theory using the aforementioned method.
Otherwise it is not a science.


The scientific method with its reason and logic are truly the greatest things that separate man from the animals, and are a reflection of the mind of God. We don't see eye to eye on what constitutes science. One could pursue all kinds of false ideas through the scientific method and erect elaborate explanative models, that doesn't make them science. The science of origins exists as it does, the observations are what they are. Your theory and my theory are hypothetical explanations.

It is clear that we do not agree on what science is, you ask if I want my theory accepted by science. It is a distortion! So then are you saying science is the group of people that give approval? Is it actually the peer review group that has created this closed culture that fears other ideas? I want what every man that has ever walked wants to know the answers to all me questions. I simply want to gain a better understanding, and to sharpen my logic and reasoning skills. Science is things as they are, Science is the origin as it happened, Science in its completeness is simply complete comprehension of every observation. Investigation through the scientific method does not something science make.

User avatar
BGoodForGoodSake
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2125
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
Christian: No
Location: Washington D.C.
Has liked: 28 times
Been liked: 12 times

#74

Post by BGoodForGoodSake » Fri Oct 07, 2005 6:39 am

Jbuza wrote: It is hard for me to determine how much of the evolutionary explanation for this arises from actual investigation and prediction, and how much of it is part of the hypothetical framework of evolution. Yes both theories would say that most fossil remains would be found in stratified rock. Trilobites being ancient is a construct of hypotheses within evolution, so I will leave that for now, but do believe it involves important observations that do involve some important topics. Further this hypothesis that fossils are found were the animals lived is most assuredly not a result of creationist theory, but it is observed that fossils are where they are.

Evolution explains strata and simple life forms in lower strata differently than creation. Scientific investigation and careful application of logic and reason have yielded two different explanations. Since you presumably know the evolution one, which while I believe it false, I will explain the hypothetical explanation of that observation from creation theory. I believe my opinion that evolution is false should not preclude people that believe it true from every advantage in careful application of logic and reason, including open discussion in the free arena of ideas.

First I will say what debunks evolutionary explanation of strata for me. I don't find it logical or reasonable, but perhaps my understanding of it is weaker than yours; which is normal you should be most famailier with your own theoretical and hypothetical explanations. So the position of evolution is that the simple life forms lived where they are found in low hypothetically ancient strata. As we move down the hypothetical record the DNA sequences evolve and life becomes more complex, etc etc etc. Now this happens throughout the hypothetical geological time periods. Were does the rock come from? Is new rock appearing throughout all of geological time? This is a serious shortcoming that evolution has not explained. Creation theory explains this.
Yes new rock is forming all the time. We can start a thread on geology if you wish. http://www.geotech.org/survey/geotech/basicgeo.html See if there is an overpass or underpass near your house. You will see a hill has been cut away and you can see the strata yourself.
=)
Jbuza wrote:Creation theory indicates that a recent global flood killed every living thing that wasn't rescued by God, I want to stop right here and say that I make no claim that what I say here is science, from a scientific investigative process this would be called hypothetical and theoretical explanation, but the observations that there are dead things encased in rock is science. While all theories can be science, they may not necessarily be true. While I claim it as truth for my own life, in the scientific arena it is theory; I think this is important. Once the world was flooded, which I know is a jump that does require explanation elsewhere, and the living matter and sediment were liquefied by the water moving mechanisms we observe today a process of stratification began. The apparent order of the world with respect to physical constants, gravitational attraction, density and sinking rates, and a host of other natural forces caused a sorting of the sediment once the waters began to recede. Consider the amount of pressure that that quantity of water has.
Lets try this, fill and aquarium with a assortment of plastic toys of various sizes. and let the water drain. Do the toys assort themselves by complexity? What are the chances a dinosaur will never be in the same layer as a halluciginia and Mammoth.
Jbuza wrote:This explains where the rock came from and why there is a certain order to the fossil record. It also perfectly answers for the numerous “Geological Anomalies”. Evolution says species are found where they live, yet can't answer why trees, root and all, are found on mountains above the tree line. I think there are a couple of explanations for that in line with my theory.
Do you mean fossilized trees? If so see geology above.
___
Jbuza wrote:There is much hypothetical evolution in here (have new forms based on older forms, the seas were once dominated by arthopods, a later geological period, earlier period one finds a primative fish). My theory indicates that all these animals lived at the same time. Without the assumption that evolution created speciation and that conjecture about earth age your four sentences would read, “Strata have different forms”, try it. That's pretty much it, the rest is hypothetical frameworking of evolution not observation or prediction. Creation need not answer theoretical and hypothetical positions that evolution assumes, its job is to explain observations, predict outcomes, and stimulate discovery.
I was responding to something you wrote, then I asked the following question. Why do strata have different forms? And why do primitive forms appear below more advanced ones. And why do higher strata only have forms based on lower strata.
___
Jbuza wrote: Doesn't this mean that evolution would need to evolve two organisms with the same DNA that are cut off from the pool so they can create more of the speciated organism. This would require two organisms to have the same mutation at the same time. Since if one organism mutated to form the new species not capable of reproducing with his ancestors, than he would die off.
No, you misunderstand completely. One mutation does not make an organism incompatible. When populations are isolated they diverge. Take modern dogs, and wolves. Eventually they will diverge to the point of incompatibility. Like the modern cat.
Jbuza wrote:But how can I separate it from itself? IT starts with beliefs, it is speculation refined with observations and predictions and observations. It can't be deduced scientifically, it would only lead back to itself. That's what makes it a theory, it isn't the science, well it could be, but there is no proof for it. Science is the evidence, evolution and creation are the explanation. The careful use of logic, reason, and the truths of math are the deduction. You can form any hypothesis that you would like, and use these methods to test.
___
Bgood wrote
You want your theory to be accepted by science? Do you admire the scientific method?
If you do then you are free to show the validity of your theory using the aforementioned method.
Otherwise it is not a science.


The scientific method with its reason and logic are truly the greatest things that separate man from the animals, and are a reflection of the mind of God. We don't see eye to eye on what constitutes science. One could pursue all kinds of false ideas through the scientific method and erect elaborate explanative models, that doesn't make them science. The science of origins exists as it does, the observations are what they are. Your theory and my theory are hypothetical explanations.

It is clear that we do not agree on what science is, you ask if I want my theory accepted by science. It is a distortion! So then are you saying science is the group of people that give approval? Is it actually the peer review group that has created this closed culture that fears other ideas? I want what every man that has ever walked wants to know the answers to all me questions. I simply want to gain a better understanding, and to sharpen my logic and reasoning skills. Science is things as they are, Science is the origin as it happened, Science in its completeness is simply complete comprehension of every observation. Investigation through the scientific method does not something science make.
You are confusing knowledge, truth and science. Science is the scientific study of things. Knowledge is what is being studied. Truth is what we are all striving to uncover.

Investigation through the scientific method does science make.
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Jbuza
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1213
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 5:26 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#75

Post by Jbuza » Fri Oct 07, 2005 12:03 pm

Bgood wrote

Yes new rock is forming all the time. We can start a thread on geology if you wish. http://www.geotech.org/survey/geotech/basicgeo.html See if there is an overpass or underpass near your house. You will see a hill has been cut away and you can see the strata yourself.
=)

What is the new rock formed of magic Dark Matter dust? IF the billions of billions of tons of strata simply appear, than long standing principles of science and conservation break down. Explain where the additional matter comes from to form the new rock. I explained for the appearance of strata, of course it will be seen. You fail to explain how the enormity of strata the world over have simply appeared covering up successive hypothetical ages that are constructs of evolution. Starta is explained within the conforms of long standing conservation theories, by the hypothetical construct of the flood that is derived from creation theory.

___
Bgood wrote

Lets try this, fill and aquarium with a assortment of plastic toys of various sizes. and let the water drain. Do the toys assort themselves by complexity? What are the chances a dinosaur will never be in the same layer as a halluciginia and Mammoth.


This anology doesn't work. First the toys float, so they would all be on the same layer, i.e. the top of the water. Second they cannot liquefy and become combined with water, would thus not be placed by sedimentation. The chances are quite good that the sedimentation process will happen in an ordered structured way, but there are variables that make it not possible to answer. Geological anomalies are called thus because that field also interprets from a set hypothetical and theoretical framework, evolution. The evolution idea is that you find fossils where those animals lived, and that strata is a picture of geological age, that's fine I don't expect evolution to have all the answers, and am not trying to exclude it from science. I have already said how creation theory explains strata, and the violence involved in an event of this proportion could easily cause and explain numerous “geological anomalies” more easily than evolution does. Neither theory can offer anything by speculating that “a dinosaur will never be in the same layer as a halluciginia and Mammoth.” This is not fact, where did you get this; there are a host of geological anomalies that are called that because they suggest that hypothetical statements like this have no sound basis.
___
Bgood wrote

Jbuza wrote
This explains where the rock came from and why there is a certain order to the fossil record. It also perfectly answers for the numerous “Geological Anomalies”. Evolution says species are found where they live, yet can't answer why trees, root and all, are found on mountains above the tree line. I think there are a couple of explanations for that in line with my theory.

Do you mean fossilized trees? If so see geology above.

Yes that is one example fossilized trees that creation theory explain were moved by a recent global flood to be laid down were they are found, or the greenhouse explanation could also have increased earth surface temperatures and produced a different climate to allow them to live where the cannot now. But the point is broader and includes numerous examples; as I see it there are two major flaws with the theoretical explanation of strata by evolution. First there is no coherent explanation for strata to begin with, and second all the evidence that it labels as “anomalies” (observations that evolutionary geology do not explain). Creation does a more thorough job of explaining what we see in the strata, and the strata itself.


___
Bgood Wrote

Why do strata have different forms? And why do primitive forms appear below more advanced ones. And why do higher strata only have forms based on lower strata.

Creation need not explain hypotheses generated from evolution. Also I am not an expert in geology, besides creation doesn't have to explain everything anyway, it is simply an alternative theoretical approach that is capable of explaining and predicting, just like evolution. However creation should be able to explain why strata have different forms, and why particular organisms could be found were they are found. I am not sure if I begin to speculate about the massive pressures, and amazingly powerful forces created by oceanographic and atmospheric forces that spawn storms like we recently saw, would work in a global flood and tirelessly investigate the huge variables involved would do for us. I am sure people would be capable of investigating through computer models how sedimentation would work, and fossilization of species trapped within a particular strata could happen, and if anyone is interested in doing that, it would be wonderful. Of course from an evolutionary framework that strata just appeared there would be no need to hypothesize about these things
___
Bgood wrote
One mutation does not make an organism incompatible. When populations are isolated they diverge. Take modern dogs, and wolves. Eventually they will diverge to the point of incompatibility. Like the modern cat.

I agree to much of what you said, but have seen no observations of mutations that produce speciation, and since my theoretical position doesn't hypothesize about it, all I can say is good for you if this is what it takes for you to explain the variety of gene pools go for it, and I hope you discover something useful. I agree that evolutionary forces are at work, but they break down and become nonsensical the closer one gets to the beginning. This is operation of the natural world that was so nicely explained by Darwin's work; However This would suppose that life didn't come from a common ancestor at all, but that an entire gene pool of breedable organisms evolved at the same time.


___
Bgood wrote
You are confusing knowledge, truth and science. Science is the scientific study of things. Knowledge is what is being studied. Truth is what we are all striving to uncover.
Investigation through the scientific method does science make.


Your right this is semantics, and I have done a poor job. Thanks for the great defs.

I would define Scientific Study as the careful use of reason and logic guided by long standing principles of investigation. . There is a concept that has a huge impact on scientific study, and that is beliefs and assumptions, the speculation that yields to fruitful hypothesis. That is why I made the comment that creation theory like any theory really cannot be scientifically deduced; that is I said that creation would only lead back to itself. All the evidence I can gain, the science I uncover, the knowledge I gain, and the truth I find, when taken back apart through a deductive process these things will be heavily influenced by the speculative process of the hypothesis, the hypothosis dictates what I should measure, observe, or calculate, it guides investigation and determines what the investigator looks at. For example you might not speculate about the things I would speculate about when investigating from different theoretical and hypothetical frameworks. Science is firstly an inductive process. I digress.

I would define science how you explain knowledge; that is that any decent definition of science will include the concept of knowledge. I would define knowledge as what is being gained, and agree with what you said about truth, but would define it as the view of how things actually are and were from an all-knowing perspective, that is that it is the right explanation of every observation

Post Reply