|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/16/2008 6:39:38 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3175
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Here is some middle school level information you can start with: Actually, most middle school students I know still have enough discernment and critical thinking skills to understand how deeply flawed and totally unsupported the theory of evolution really is! It's after their HS biology course and on into remedial college science that the secular brainwashing of godless public education really becomes effective.
I'm not going to waste my time with your link, KT, because it will merely list the interpretations of evidence that someone wants to use to allegedly prove the religion of naturalism. Your true colors are now quite apparent with references to FSM theology. Have a nice day, KT.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/16/2008 9:19:14 PM
|
|
|
KaseyTom
Posts: 163
Joined: 9/12/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
I'm not going to waste my time with your link, KT, because it will merely list the interpretations of evidence that someone wants to use to allegedly prove the religion of naturalism. Your true colors are now quite apparent with references to FSM theology. Have a nice day, KT.
That "someone" is the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine. No more respectable collection of scientists in the area of medicine and related biological sciences exists on the planet.
Don't think so? Have a look at their membership:
http://www.iom.edu/CMS/2951/16476.aspx?browseby=Last+Name&filterby=a
< Message edited by KaseyTom -- 9/16/2008 10:01:26 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/16/2008 11:23:56 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7865
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
We will know that once the nature of these events are better understood. They did, after all, occur 500+ million years ago. In particular we need to refine the timescales and understand what environmental events might have influenced the phenomena.
So you have faith that evolutionary science will predict that which it did not predict.
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/17/2008 1:35:25 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1364
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: KaseyTom
Actually, I take that back, ID predicts everything and anything.
Stop demonstrating your ignorance. ID says that, whenever we observe the emergence of IC and SC systems and the origins are known, they are always a product of design. Based on this, ID predicts that IC and SC systems (ie: the flagellum) should never be observed to originate independent of existing IC and SC systems or design. UCD predicts nothing, Darwin was wrong about a lot and it never falsified UCD (ie: the secular concept of evolution has changed much since Darwin). ID predicts that abiogenesis should never be observed to occur independent of design. UCD predicts nothing. ID predicts that we should never observe the origin of organs, organ systems, body plans, limbs, appendages, etc... or the DNA coding for these apparatuses independent design. UCD predicts nothing. ID proponents have advocated the idea of front loading and the universal genome to a far greater extent than evolutionists long before it was accepted as true by evolutionists (now it's accepted that we have genetic switches that turn on and off, an idea that was far more widely advocated by ID advocates long before and an evolutionist eventually tacitly admit that the idea was advocated by Behe and he didn't want people to think that he was advocating intelligent design just because intelligent design advocates widely advocated the idea to a much greater extent than evolutionists long before evolutionists). ID also accepted the idea that much of our alleged Junk DNA would turn out to be more useful than evolutionists traditionally claimed them to be and that turned out to be true (post 16).
A "scientist" said that a functional appendix "makes evolutionary sense"
when Darwin himself thought the appendix was useless and he (and many evolutionists after Darwin and before it was discovered that the appendix was more useful than Darwin thought) used the notion that it was useless to argue for evolution. UCD predicts nothing.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 9/17/2008 1:46:16 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/17/2008 1:44:26 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1364
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
So you have faith that evolutionary science will predict that which it did not predict.
The problem is that UCD doesn't predict anything, it only accommodates the evidence after the fact.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/17/2008 1:56:46 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1364
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: KaseyTom
quote:
So which of the Cambrian organisms did evolution predict would be found? Which of the organisms of the Avalon explosion?
We will know that once the nature of these events are better understood.
In particular we need to refine the timescales and understand what environmental events might have influenced the phenomena.
You're not making any predictions based on evolution. You only plan to look at the evidence and accommodate it within an evolutionary timescale. In other words, evolution doesn't predict anything, it merely accommodates the evidence after the fact. You can't make any predictions in terms of what we should find beforehand, you can only find stuff and then, after finding data, "refine the timescale" to fit the assumed model (but the assumed model itself makes no predictions in terms of what we should find). We do not know which of the Cambrian organisms evolution predicted would be found because evolution only claims to predict what is actually found (ie: evolution can only make predictions "once the nature of these events are better understood" or once it has found the Cambrian organisms that it finds, which is a postdiction, not a prediction).
The reason you can't answer his question and tell me what evolution predicts (or predicted) is because evolution doesn't make any predictions (which is why you are unable to use it to answer his question by making predictions or telling me what it predicted). It finds the evidence first and then claims that it predicts whatever is found after the fact. In other words, it makes postdictions, not predictions, and then it claims that it predicts what it posticted.
quote:
They did, after all, occur 500+ million years ago.
Speculation.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 9/17/2008 2:13:37 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/17/2008 11:43:18 AM
|
|
|
KaseyTom
Posts: 163
Joined: 9/12/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
We will know that once the nature of these events are better understood. They did, after all, occur 500+ million years ago. In particular we need to refine the timescales and understand what environmental events might have influenced the phenomena.
So you have faith that evolutionary science will predict that which it did not predict.
Are you referring to the kind of faith that allows one to believe in something for which no physical evidence exists, that has never been observed, that defies logic, that contradicts established science?
Or, are you referring to the kind of faith that allows one to believe that an event that has occurred thousands of times in the past, that science and logic predict will continue to occur with even more frequency in the future, which has been verified as true through countless observations and experiments, for which irrefutable physical evidence overflows in museums and universities, will likely occur again?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/17/2008 12:00:24 PM
|
|
|
KaseyTom
Posts: 163
Joined: 9/12/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: KaseyTom
quote:
So which of the Cambrian organisms did evolution predict would be found? Which of the organisms of the Avalon explosion?
We will know that once the nature of these events are better understood.
In particular we need to refine the timescales and understand what environmental events might have influenced the phenomena.
You're not making any predictions based on evolution. You only plan to look at the evidence and accommodate it within an evolutionary timescale. In other words, evolution doesn't predict anything, it merely accommodates the evidence after the fact. You can't make any predictions in terms of what we should find beforehand, you can only find stuff and then, after finding data, "refine the timescale" to fit the assumed model (but the assumed model itself makes no predictions in terms of what we should find). We do not know which of the Cambrian organisms evolution predicted would be found because evolution only claims to predict what is actually found (ie: evolution can only make predictions "once the nature of these events are better understood" or once it has found the Cambrian organisms that it finds, which is a postdiction, not a prediction).
The reason you can't answer his question and tell me what evolution predicts (or predicted) is because evolution doesn't make any predictions (which is why you are unable to use it to answer his question by making predictions or telling me what it predicted). It finds the evidence first and then claims that it predicts whatever is found after the fact. In other words, it makes postdictions, not predictions, and then it claims that it predicts what it posticted.
quote:
They did, after all, occur 500+ million years ago.
Speculation.
The predictive power of science comes from being able to say things we would not have been able to say otherwise. These predictions do not have to be about things happening in the future. They can be "retrodictions" about things from the past that we have not found yet. Evolution allows innumerable predictions of this sort.
Evolution has been the basis of many predictions. For example:
Darwin predicted, based on homologies with African apes, that human ancestors arose in Africa. That prediction has been supported by fossil and genetic evidence (Ingman et al. 2000).
Theory predicted that organisms in heterogeneous and rapidly changing environments should have higher mutation rates. This has been found in the case of bacteria infecting the lungs of chronic cystic fibrosis patients (Oliver et al. 2000).
Predator-prey dynamics are altered in predictable ways by evolution of the prey (Yoshida et al. 2003).
Ernst Mayr predicted in 1954 that speciation should be accompanied with faster genetic evolution. A phylogenetic analysis has supported this prediction (Webster et al. 2003).
Several authors predicted characteristics of the ancestor of craniates. On the basis of a detailed study, they found the fossil Haikouella "fit these predictions closely" (Mallatt and Chen 2003).
Evolution predicts that different sets of character data should still give the same phylogenetic trees. This has been confirmed informally myriad times and quantitatively, with different protein sequences, by Penny et al. (1982).
Insect wings evolved from gills, with an intermediate stage of skimming on the water surface. Since the primitive surface-skimming condition is widespread among stoneflies, J. H. Marden predicted that stoneflies would likely retain other primitive traits, too. This prediction led to the discovery in stoneflies of functional hemocyanin, used for oxygen transport in other arthropods but never before found in insects (Hagner-Holler et al. 2004; Marden 2005).
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA210.html
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/17/2008 12:11:09 PM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 971
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize quote:
A "scientist" said that a functional appendix "makes evolutionary sense"
when Darwin himself thought the appendix was useless and he (and many evolutionists after Darwin and before it was discovered that the appendix was more useful than Darwin thought) used the notion that it was useless to argue for evolution.
That’s the beauty of TOE. If an organ is thought to be useless then its uselessness is support for TOE. However, if that organ is shown to be useful its usefulness is support for TOE. How can a theory with that kind of support not be scientific?
_____________________________
"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." - John 5:46
Visit my home church.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/17/2008 12:15:34 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3175
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Or, are you referring to the kind of faith that allows one to believe that an event that has occurred thousands of times in the past, that science and logic predict will continue to occur with even more frequency in the future, which has been verified as true through countless observations and experiments, for which irrefutable physical evidence overflows in museums and universities, will likely occur again? Oh please spare me the dramatic rhetoric, KT! Do you have a single example of one organism evolving into another more complex kind or not?
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/17/2008 12:15:44 PM
|
|
|
KaseyTom
Posts: 163
Joined: 9/12/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: KaseyTom
Actually, I take that back, ID predicts everything and anything.
Stop demonstrating your ignorance. ID says that, whenever we observe the emergence of IC and SC systems and the origins are known, they are always a product of design. Based on this, ID predicts that IC and SC systems (ie: the flagellum) should never be observed to originate independent of existing IC and SC systems or design. UCD predicts nothing, Darwin was wrong about a lot and it never falsified UCD (ie: the secular concept of evolution has changed much since Darwin). ID predicts that abiogenesis should never be observed to occur independent of design. UCD predicts nothing. ID predicts that we should never observe the origin of organs, organ systems, body plans, limbs, appendages, etc... or the DNA coding for these apparatuses independent design. UCD predicts nothing. ID proponents have advocated the idea of front loading and the universal genome to a far greater extent than evolutionists long before it was accepted as true by evolutionists (now it's accepted that we have genetic switches that turn on and off, an idea that was far more widely advocated by ID advocates long before and an evolutionist eventually tacitly admit that the idea was advocated by Behe and he didn't want people to think that he was advocating intelligent design just because intelligent design advocates widely advocated the idea to a much greater extent than evolutionists long before evolutionists). ID also accepted the idea that much of our alleged Junk DNA would turn out to be more useful than evolutionists traditionally claimed them to be and that turned out to be true (post 16).
A "scientist" said that a functional appendix "makes evolutionary sense"
when Darwin himself thought the appendix was useless and he (and many evolutionists after Darwin and before it was discovered that the appendix was more useful than Darwin thought) used the notion that it was useless to argue for evolution. UCD predicts nothing.
For ID to predict anything, it would have to be a scientific theory. It meets none of the criteria of a scientific theory. That is because it is philosophy, not science. That is why the vast majority of the scientific community deny it is science, and why the vast majority of it's proponents are not scientists of any renown and have a religious agenda.
I'm no scientists and cannot refute the technical arguments you make. I'll leave that to the National Academy of Sciences whose membership includes just about every prominent scientist of any renown in the US and every living US Nobel Prize laureate in the physical sciences.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/17/2008 12:28:38 PM
|
|
|
KaseyTom
Posts: 163
Joined: 9/12/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Or, are you referring to the kind of faith that allows one to believe that an event that has occurred thousands of times in the past, that science and logic predict will continue to occur with even more frequency in the future, which has been verified as true through countless observations and experiments, for which irrefutable physical evidence overflows in museums and universities, will likely occur again? Oh please spare me the dramatic rhetoric, KT! Do you have a single example of one organism evolving into another more complex kind or not?
How about Hominids?
http://www.scientific-art.com/portfolio%20palaeontology%20pages/homtree.htm
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/17/2008 12:44:00 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3175
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
What a beautiful picture of someone's imaginary flight of fantasy! Thanks for your answer, KT - it confirms every other non-answer I've ever recieved on these S&O threads.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/17/2008 1:09:16 PM
|
|
|
LoyalGypsy
Posts: 2433
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
Contrary to many atheists, who claim science is neutral in regards to religion, the authors of the letter seem to think that scientific exploration inevitably leads to atheism.
What do you think?
Greetings,
This week’s show of Creation In The 21st Century on TBN was pretty good the show is called "The Gaps are Enormous"
http://www.tbn.org/index.php/2/4/p/3.html
The professor states some 20 minutes into the show that the law of evolution by its teaching is designed to weaken ones faith in Jesus Christ, so I guess for believers it wont exactly make them atheist;
....by design evolution it is set to educate a Christian “out of” decrement, by it utter ridiculousness.
LG
_____________________________
Ex 19:5 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice
...So the Persians ask that the 300 drop their arms. Leonidas responds; "Persians! Come and get them!"
300 The Movie
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/17/2008 2:21:45 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1084
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: WesP
TOE says everything came from nothing and time always was.
No, it doesn't.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/17/2008 2:27:21 PM
|
|
|
cih92
Posts: 124
Joined: 4/18/2005
Status: offline
|
Science assumes that there are objective moral values such as one should tell the truth when making scientific reports, one should not try to fit the scientific evidence into their preconceived idea, and so on. If atheism is true, then there cannot be any objective moral values.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/17/2008 3:19:34 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1084
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: WesP
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:
ORIGINAL: WesP
TOE says everything came from nothing and time always was.
No, it doesn't.
The suppositions that underlie TOE stem from those 2 facts. The time is now set around 14 billion years with absolutely no way to confirm, but that is just the latest theory. In the beginning, there was no life. Life came from _______. What goes in the blank? What did that first cell come from?
If we include abiogenesis within the TOE, then the blank would be filled with "non-living molecules," not "nothing."
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/17/2008 3:21:35 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1084
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cih92
Science assumes that there are objective moral values such as one should tell the truth when making scientific reports, one should not try to fit the scientific evidence into their preconceived idea, and so on. If atheism is true, then there cannot be any objective moral values.
Although the practice of science is certainly subject to various ethical norms, science does not assume the existence of objective moral values.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/17/2008 4:00:28 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7865
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
For ID to predict anything, it would have to be a scientific theory. It meets none of the criteria of a scientific theory. That is because it is philosophy, not science. That is why the vast majority of the scientific community deny it is science, and why the vast majority of it's proponents are not scientists of any renown and have a religious agenda.
That's a nice circular argument - it can't predict anything because it's not science, it's not science because it can't predict anything...
And evolution didn't predict the explosive appearance of life on earth, but it will, once we know more about it.
The logic here is amazing.
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/17/2008 4:04:25 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7865
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Are you referring to the kind of faith that allows one to believe in something for which no physical evidence exists, that has never been observed, that defies logic, that contradicts established science?
You mean like abiogenesis?
quote:
Or, are you referring to the kind of faith that allows one to believe that an event that has occurred thousands of times in the past, that science and logic predict will continue to occur with even more frequency in the future, which has been verified as true through countless observations and experiments, for which irrefutable physical evidence overflows in museums and universities, will likely occur again?
The Cambrian explosion has occurred thousands of times in the past? It will occur with more frequency in the future? Where are you getting this information from?
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/17/2008 7:02:39 PM
|
|
|
cih92
Posts: 124
Joined: 4/18/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:
ORIGINAL: cih92
Science assumes that there are objective moral values such as one should tell the truth when making scientific reports, one should not try to fit the scientific evidence into their preconceived idea, and so on. If atheism is true, then there cannot be any objective moral values.
Although the practice of science is certainly subject to various ethical norms, science does not assume the existence of objective moral values.
Looking at the evidence in an unbiased manner is a part of science. It is also an ethical practice.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/17/2008 7:28:51 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3175
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Looking at the evidence in an unbiased manner is a part of science. If you mean by "looking at the evidece" merely the observation, recording, and collection of data, I would completely agree. However, the interpretation, understanding, and conclusions drawn from that data can never be "in a 100% unbiased manner"! Do you see the difference or did I misunderstand your statement, cih92?
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/17/2008 7:41:49 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 677
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
I'm thinking KT was actually Essentialsaltes under a pseudonym, trying to get us riled up with sophomoric arguments and copy-paste statements from Talk Origins. Notice how you never see the two of them in the same place at the same time? I'm on to you ES.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
