20 Apr 11
Originally posted by AgergWell now that is funny count them by the number of birthdays I had, yea I can
You determine your own age by counting the number of birthdays you've had since you were born (as they correspond to distinct and contiguous years) but don't you think this method is somewhat suspect? I mean...how were you to know how many birthdays you had when you had not matured enough to keep track yourself? You at some point had to rely on the information ...[text shortened]... of inference to determine the speed of light or the age of the universe!
see how that would be an issue. Seriously, exactly how many universes have
you ever witnessed with your own eyes start Unlike things that take place where
we have recorded history, the beginning of all things is only found in faith. So when
someone says they know what the age is, they are only spouting off their beliefs.
Kelly
20 Apr 11
Originally posted by KellyJayAmen!
Well now that is funny count them by the number of birthdays I had, yea I can
see how that would be an issue. Seriously, exactly how many universes have
you ever witnessed with your own eyes start Unlike things that take place where
we have recorded history, the beginning of all things is only found in faith. So when
someone says they know what the age is, they are only spouting off their beliefs.
Kelly
20 Apr 11
2 edits
So something evolutionist should be asking themselves, is there anything that
evolution cannot do? If you say there is nothing it cannot do, then you have
a stacked deck, a belief that is unable to fail, a godlike quality being given to
a process. If it cannot fail, there is nothing that can be falsified about this
theory since nothing no matter how farfetched cannot be credited to it, you will
believe in it no matter what!
Kelly
20 Apr 11
Originally posted by KellyJayI am perfectly aware that tea leaves are allegory. I still say that you were being dishonest when you said I was essentially guessing the date. I made no references whatsoever to a date. My argument has nothing whatsoever to do with dates. It is simply that information carried in light tells us something about its source, so if the light is created in transit then the information is about a non-existent source. No dates required. For you to refuse to address this point and instead say something about me reading tea leaves (allegory or otherwise) is dishonest of you.
Tea leaves are an allegory gheesh, I think you've had to much coffee or something.
Kelly
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
20 Apr 11
Originally posted by KellyJayYou have just defined and criticized the "evolutionist" as someone who holds to evolution as an unfalsifiable position.
So something evolutionist should be asking themselves, is there anything that
evolution cannot do? If you say there is nothing it cannot do, then you have
a stacked deck, a belief that is unable to fail, a godlike quality being given to
a process. If it cannot fail, there is nothing that can be falsified about this
theory since nothing no matter how farfetched cannot be credited to it, you will
believe in it no matter what!
Kelly
Is divine creation of kinds, falsifiable? How?
20 Apr 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf you say I'm lying to you one more time we are done! So we are clear you saying
I am perfectly aware that tea leaves are allegory. I still say that you were being dishonest when you said I was essentially guessing the date. I made no references whatsoever to a date. My argument has nothing whatsoever to do with dates. It is simply that information carried in light tells us something about its source, so if the light is created in tra ...[text shortened]... d instead say something about me reading tea leaves (allegory or otherwise) is dishonest of you.
I'm being dishonest in what I'm saying as far as I'm concern is calling me a liar.
I told you when God created the universe He did so by putting everything in place,
this means all the causes and effects were play, all things that required being
balanced were made being in balanced they didn't have to reach that state. Adam
when he was made was made as an adult, if you think that is an illusion, so be it.
If God wanted a water fall when the land appeared it wouldn't have had to rain to
put the water where He wanted it, if there are forces in play that keep our
galaxy in place they would not have evolved to get there, that is creation.
Kelly
20 Apr 11
Originally posted by KellyJayThere is an enormous difference between being dishonest and lying. One can even be dishonest without ever saying a word.
If you say I'm lying to you one more time we are done! So we are clear you saying
I'm being dishonest in what I'm saying as far as I'm concern is calling me a liar.
If you go back and read the two posts prior to the one in which I said you were being grossly dishonest, you will see that I explicitly state "I am not claiming any knowledge." and your response is "you took it upon yourself to read the tea leaves and come up with a number".
Now it is entirely possible that you didn't read my post and just responded out of hand, but considering that you seem quite capable of reading most of my posts and only ignore issues that might be difficult to address, I rather suspect you were deliberately avoiding my point and trying to turn it around and make it look like I was the one 'reading the tea leaves'.
I told you when God created the universe He did so by putting everything in place,
this means all the causes and effects were play, all things that required being
balanced were made being in balanced they didn't have to reach that state.
It follows therefore that if there is an effect that he 'put in play' whose cause was not put in play, then the apparent cause is an illusion. If Adam was created with memories of a childhood, then those memories are an illusion for Adam. If light is created in a pattern such that it appears to have come from a star, then that star is an illusion.
The problem is that you claim the light was created as if it came from a star, then deny that the star is an illusion. Then you deny that you are thus contradicting yourself.
20 Apr 11
Originally posted by KellyJayThings evolution says are impossible and that would disprove the theory (if discovered legitimately and not found to be a hoax or experimental/observational error):
So something evolutionist should be asking themselves, is there anything that
evolution cannot do? If you say there is nothing it cannot do, then you have
a stacked deck, a belief that is unable to fail, a godlike quality being given to
a process. If it cannot fail, there is nothing that can be falsified about this
theory since nothing no matter how farfetched cannot be credited to it, you will
believe in it no matter what!
Kelly
1. A dog giving birth, naturally, to a cat.
2. a static fossil record;
3. True chimeras, that is, organisms that combined parts from several different and diverse lineages (such as mermaids and centaurs) and which are not explained by lateral gene transfer, which transfers relatively small amounts of DNA between lineages, or symbiosis, where two whole organisms come together;
4. a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating;
5. Fossilized bunnies (or indeed any mammal) in the cambrian. Generally, deviations from what is expected in the fossil record.
Also, from http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_disp.htm:
The foundational observations which support evolution are the ordered fossil record and radiometric analysis of the dates of rocks.
6. If some convincing proof were discovered that the radiometric analyses are in error by about a factor of 500,000 or so, and that the earth is fewer than 10,000 years of age, then evolution would be disproved. There simply would not have been sufficient time for all of the new species to have evolved.
So that's 6 things to be going on with. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is a falsifiable scientific theory.
--- Penguin
20 Apr 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadYour problem with your understanding is that you do not accept that
There is an enormous difference between being dishonest and lying. One can even be dishonest without ever saying a word.
If you go back and read the two posts prior to the one in which I said you were being grossly dishonest, you will see that I explicitly state "I am not claiming any knowledge." and your response is "you took it upon yourself to read th ...[text shortened]... that the star is an illusion. Then you deny that you are thus contradicting yourself.
creation was a miracle caused by God, the uncaused cause of
the universe.
20 Apr 11
Originally posted by PenguinNatural Selection is the same as adaptation and there is no evidence
Things evolution says are impossible and that would disprove the theory (if discovered legitimately and not found to be a hoax or experimental/observational error):
1. A dog giving birth, naturally, to a cat.
2. a static fossil record;
3. True chimeras, that is, organisms that combined parts from several different and diverse lineages (such as mermaids ...[text shortened]... The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is a falsifiable scientific theory.
--- Penguin
that adaption causes evolution of one kind of creature into a more
advanced kind of creature. Adaptation only allows the creature to
change within limits to better suit the conditions of its environment.
There is no convincing proof that radiometric analysis is accurate since
there is no test sample available that is positively known to be more
than a few thousand years of age, much less, more than 10,000 years
of age. And what ordered fossil records? Some of the fossil records
have been proved to have been fakes and any order in the others are
just conjecture and guess work.
20 Apr 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadI suggest you find another way of expressing that sentiment the one you use is offensive.
There is an enormous difference between being dishonest and lying. One can even be dishonest without ever saying a word.
If you go back and read the two posts prior to the one in which I said you were being grossly dishonest, you will see that I explicitly state "I am not claiming any knowledge." and your response is "you took it upon yourself to read th ...[text shortened]... that the star is an illusion. Then you deny that you are thus contradicting yourself.
Kelly
20 Apr 11
Originally posted by KellyJayOne tends to identify a change in their age with a birthday. When you are 39 you of course, refer to yourself as being a 39 years old but on the day of your birthday you then refer to yourself as 40.
Well now that is funny count them by the number of birthdays I had, yea I can
see how that would be an issue. Seriously, exactly how many universes have
you ever witnessed with your own eyes start Unlike things that take place where
we have recorded history, the beginning of all things is only found in faith. So when
someone says they know what the age is, they are only spouting off their beliefs.
Kelly
I don't think the underlying point of my last post hit home - you don't need to have seen something start to deduce *when* it started supposing the rules we use to make this deduction have been thoroughly tested and passed the tests. You are just wildly throwing in objections that perhaps there are exceptions to our rules, for no reason other than the implications of these deductions are damning to your faith.
If we all played the same game as you then we could have confidence in very little indeed. When we go to get a drink of water from the kitchen tap (or whatever you call them in the U.S...faucets?) how can we be sure that the water won't be laced with poisons; I mean yeah...it sort of makes sense that it would be a poor business model to poison ones customers and moreover it might be difficult to coerce your employees to carry out such poisoning, but it could happen! You never know for sure!!!
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
20 Apr 11
Originally posted by KellyJaySo it sounds like you are being critical of the "evolutionist" for believing something that (you say) is unfalsifiable, but you are not being critical of yourself for believing something that (you say) is unfalsifiable. That may be because you admit your belief is faith-based.
It is not falsifiable, it is a special event.
Kelly
I think the point you make is significant and bears examination by people to whom falsifiability is a new term.
I suppose that some "evolutionists" have a faith-like commitment to the idea of evolution. Not all people who believe evolution theory is the best scientific theory for the diversity and history of life on earth have this commitment, and I think they should not be called "evolutionists." The counterpart would the the creationist, or at least, the young-earth creationist.
There are creationists who look on our limited scientific understanding of how God did it, to be part of His revelation. Noted scientist and evangelical Christian Francis Collins has said he considers scientific discoveries an "opportunity to worship."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins
A proper attitude toward all scientific findings is that they are provisional. Two early evolution theories, Lamarckianism and saltation, were in fact, falsified. Frauds have occurred and been revealed. Gregor Mendel's work modified certain aspects of theory, and discovery of the structure and function of DNA has taken it further, dispelling or clarifying previous assumptions.
A semi-famous reaction to "evolution is unfalsifiable" is "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian era."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precambrian_rabbit
20 Apr 11
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHinds“...Natural Selection is the same as adaptation ...”
Natural Selection is the same as adaptation and there is no evidence
that adaption causes evolution of one kind of creature into a more
advanced kind of creature. Adaptation only allows the creature to
change within limits to better suit the conditions of its environment.
There is no convincing proof that radiometric analysis is accurate since
there ...[text shortened]... been proved to have been fakes and any order in the others are
just conjecture and guess work.
No it isn't.
Natural Selection is the environment causing some individuals in a population to die or fail to reproduce while causing others to live and reproduce. This would not 'immediately' (in one generation) cause any significant adaptation.
Adaptation, in this very narrow context, is when a species changes its average genetic characteristics of its individuals to become better adapted to their environment and this normally takes many generations to happen significantly.
Natural Selection combined with new mutations and new gene recombinations can cause evolution that can cause significant adaptation. Natural Selection alone cannot cause this; I mean, not without new mutations and new gene recombinations.
“...and there is no evidence
that adaption causes evolution of ...”
No, you got that cause and effect back-to-front. . That is not how evolution works nor what happens and nobody is claiming that.
It is NOT that adaptation causes evolution; it is that evolution causes adaptation (specifically, genetic adaptation) and nobody is claiming here to the contrary.