Scientific and logical objections to evolution...

[copacetic]

You have been both temp and perma-banned from these forums. Anyone who's been around PD for a few years knows this. Stop trying to bullschit people now and get back to the topic at hand, or kindly remove yourself from the discussion...

Is currently banned from PD, as far as I know, hence the eruption of philosophical feces into NS...

 

[Swa]

There is nothing I have come across that gives any empirical evidence of purpose ( "purpose", not your Aristotelian "ends" ), or that cannot be adequately explained without introducing "purpose". If you would like to provide some such evidence - convincing please - then I might have to re-evaluate that view.

And just because I quote certain parts of what Carnap says does not mean I worship his whole kitten kaboodle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
What you are essentially doing is saying that if you see no evidence of purpose and everything is explainable without it then there can't be any purpose. It is likely no. 4 actually. We do not have any real means to investigate purpose. What you are examining is not life but an abstract of life. An abstract is a diminished version of a reality that doesn't take all factors into account. Life functions with no noticeable difference without taking into account the question of purpose. That does not mean purpose doesn't exist.

A simple counter example would be an electronic simulation. It works like the real thing and gives the correct result but it does not take into account things like wiring resistance and quantum noise. That does not mean those things don't exist, we know they do. It simply means they don't make a measurable difference most of the time. Your conclusion is therefor an illogical one.

I gave a working definition of "purpose" some pages back. Purposelessness would be the state of having no such purpose.

An experiment would be interesting. One would have to work out what in the natural world could exhibit intention. Of course, if that murdering rock over there had an unhappy childhood, it was probably not its fault it committed the crime LOL!

Sorry I missed it. So just reiterate is it something that's made to accomplish a particular task or goal or is it something that is simply useful on some level independent of how it came to be? If it's the latter there may be experiments you can perform - fire creates heat, heat can boil water, boiling water can cook food. If it's the former I'm afraid you have no leg to stand on. The problem you're facing is that of cause and effect. We can only examine current causes and the current effects of past causes. We can speculate about what those past causes were but hell you can't even know how life sprang up like a mushroom against all odds so the claim that life exhibits no purpose is pretty much bunk. It has no purpose in YOUR frame of view but that says absolutely nothing about the larger context.

Oh I see from post #68 it appears to be the former indeed. You claim that metaphysics is bunk. You cite Carnap as rejecting it. Just because Carnap rejects it from any premise he's willing to accept in favour of empirical observation doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We can thus infer that Carnap is simply not willing to accept some premises. Oops a contradiction here. You appeal to science to solve a metaphysical problem but science can't even prove itself correct without some metaphysical assumptions. So if you reject metaphysics as bunk you have to reject science. Need another shovel there?

@Porchrat: You're harping on the wrong person. It's Rwenzori that claims purpose is empirically testable. We don't think it is and you don't think it is either. Once we get a test or not of this we can move on. Sorry for disrupting your playground with valid discussion but since I have this typed I'm posting it.

oooh oooh a species wide disease precipitated on a mythical event which leaves their bones twice as thick as modern humans.....

Support your mythical event.

You're still missing the boat entirely. It does not matter what "mythical" event occurred or not. The article cites even more "experts" disagreeing with each other. The doctors seem to think they should diagnose bone diseases while anthropologists seem to think only they can. So who the **** does have the qualifications? It's not like we can test their conclusions without referring to their conclusions. If fossils are as well preserved as claimed then it should be a simple task for a doctor. If not then we have the problem of relying on reconstructions. Reconstruction relies largely on the paradigm you're using. We know from past experience that fossils are not nearly as well preserved as people would like them to be and we know how a pigs tooth can take on its own life in the form of your tree swinging great great great ... grandpa.

You're also latching on to the false claim that CreationWiki addresses. None of them cite disease as the only cause but rather an attributing factor. Whatever morphological differences remain look at what the rest say. Even with all the differences, including possible disease related ones, some wouldn't even classify Neanderthal as a different human subspecies.

 

[alloytoo]

You're still missing the boat entirely. It does not matter what "mythical" event occurred or not. The article cites even more "experts" disagreeing with each other. The doctors seem to think they should diagnose bone diseases while anthropologists seem to think only they can. So who the **** does have the qualifications? It's not like we can test their conclusions without referring to their conclusions. If fossils are as well preserved as claimed then it should be a simple task for a doctor. If not then we have the problem of relying on reconstructions. Reconstruction relies largely on the paradigm you're using. We know from past experience that fossils are not nearly as well preserved as people would like them to be and we know how a pigs tooth can take on its own life in the form of your tree swinging great great great ... grandpa.

There is no boat to miss, unless it's the Ark, which is still missing btw.

You're also latching on to the false claim that CreationWiki addresses. None of them cite disease as the only cause but rather an attributing factor. Whatever morphological differences remain look at what the rest say. Even with all the differences, including possible disease related ones, some wouldn't even classify Neanderthal as a different human subspecies.

NCSE takes the nonsense apart

But lets cut to the chase, given that you're using creation wiki, let establish a wackiness baseline.

Do you believe in a flood event in or about 2348 BC?

How old is the earth?

a) about 6010 years old.

b) about 4.5 Billion years old.

 

[rwenzori]

What you are essentially doing is saying that if you see no evidence of purpose and

Take it to my *new* improved thread in PD. Or your own thread in PD.

 

[zippy]

Sorry but that is just BULLSCHIT! You can't expect one party in a debate to both supply the proof and refute it. If no proof is supplied then it's assumed there is none.


I just put forth a simple formula/illustration to determine the strength of any particular claim. Either you accept it or not. It's very simple. You just take the amount of evidence and subtract from it those evidences which are refuted. I don't know what you are on about an infinite number of solutions here.


It's not about the evidence that counters it. There's this assumption that separate evidence needs to exist to counter evolution. No it's about how strong the evidence is for it. Most of it however is circulatory. Take the fossil record for instance and Ronald West's comment:
"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory."

And let's not even get into how these fossils are constructed.


Here you have a problem because evolution is NOT an empirical science. Most of its evidence is based on a number of metaphysical assumptions that can't be tested empirically.

A lot of astrophysics is not based on empirical evidence either. You are throwing around some big words in an attempt to sound scientific. "metaphysical assumptions", "empirical science" hehe. Entertaining, if nothing else

 

[Swa]

About "junk DNA. It should be clear that when something is labeled as “junk DNA” it simply does not imply that it is actually functionless junk. At best the term "junk DNA" merely applies to DNA that is a provisionally labeled for sequences of DNA for which no function has been identified. To jump from this to the claim that it is actually functionless amounts to an argument from ignorance. A logical fallacy.

That is the definition today. Now there appears to be some rewriting of history by people like Larry Moran who criticises Wells for his definition of junk DNA. True the original definition of junk DNA was by Susumu Ohno. His paper used the term to refer to genes that could not have a function because it would cause gene "overload." Larry leaves this out however and even denies it and instead make it sound like it's always been defined as DNA with unknown function.

That is only the recent history though. After genes were discovered it was found that large regions exhibited no apparent function. It was assumed that over time genes would mutate to have no function and so be relegated to the junkyard of fossil DNA. That doesn't mean it was useless as later mutations could give it function again making it a source for evolution. After Ohno's paper in 1972 ideas started forming that it may have an unknown function. Ohno's term of junk DNA was adopted. Larry is right about the original application but leaves out that it was applied to a changed idea. The original idea was that some DNA doesn't just have an unknown function but has no current function except for a few active genes scattered about.

There are many other interesting findings as well e.g. Turtles More Closely Related to Birds Than Lizards and Snakes, Genetic Evidence Shows. This just means the data is updated, we are less ignorant, our previous views where incorrect.

It's actually hilarious to watch the circus. Darwin thought that the fossils were just undiscovered and had all the confidence they would be found. As time went by it became apparent that the fossils were not there at all and it actually came to embarrassingly confirm the creation account. So lines of descent were changed by DNA and the fossil evidence deemed unreliable and discarded. It will be really ironic when the next thing comes along, epigenetics perhaps, and Darwinists discard DNA and ERV's on the same basis as we do.

And strong evidence that sudden changes probably happened in response to perhaps environmental factors. It casrs dount over gradualism but not evolution.

That's speculation. I don't see how P.E. can be accepted and not creation unless there's a bias involved.

Ok good, you don't support ID, you support creationism. Now, it has to be pointed out that evolution does not rule out theistic creationism and you don't have to argue against evolution to defend creationism. In fact, doing so is simply silly as evolution really is irrelevant in trying to defend theistic creationism.

Except that it's not so simple as that. I support and believe in creationism but I don't defend it. Unless something changes both creationism and evolution is ultimately unverifiable. It seems to me you are saying that I can believe in theistic evolution and that will solve both problems. True but that is more a compromise than logic. It requires the assumption of either evolution A or evolution B. That is a logical fallacy as there could also be option 2 with A or B or a combination of option 1 & 2 with A or B.

Even with all its metaphysical assumptions Ruse still argues that there is such a thing as pure scientific evolution but concedes that that is NOT what we have. Instead it's a movement of new age atheism that is using science as a tool for its own ends.


I'll be answering the rest here

 

[Swa]

There is no boat to miss, unless it's the Ark, which is still missing btw.



NCSE takes the nonsense apart

But lets cut to the chase, given that you're using creation wiki, let establish a wackiness baseline.

Do you believe in a flood event in or about 2348 BC?

How old is the earth?

a) about 6010 years old.

b) about 4.5 Billion years old.

I see you're still latching on to that instead of the main points. I assume you agree with them then.

 

[alloytoo]

I see you're still latching on to that instead of the main points. I assume you agree with them then.

What main points?

Neanderthal, rickets, vitamin D deficiency, flood event.

Go on, tie it all together without links or quotes.



When you've done that please answer the questions.

Do you believe in a flood event in or about 2348 BC?

How old is the earth?

a) about 6010 years old.

b) about 4.5 Billion years old.

 

[Swa]

What main points?

The ones you clearly missed. Go back and read my post.

When you've done that please answer the questions.

Why? Do you like playing the man and not the ball?

 

[Techne]

I'll be answering the rest here

We can continue this conversation there.

 

[alloytoo]

The ones you clearly missed. Go back and read my post.

In you own words, no quotes and coherent.

Why? Do you like playing the man and not the ball?

They're really simple questions which determine whether we're playing the same game.

Do you believe in a flood event in or about 2348 BC?

How old is the earth?

a) about 6010 years old.

b) about 4.5 Billion years old.

 

[rwenzori]

They're really simple questions which determine whether we're playing the same game.

Do you believe in a flood event in or about 2348 BC?

How old is the earth?

a) about 6010 years old.

b) about 4.5 Billion years old.

It always stuns me how clappers - supposedly infused with the goodness of Holey Ghostey - remain so full of lies and deceit. If this one has to answer your questions he will look a proper tit, in all likelihood. So much for shouting your faith from the rooftops.

PS. To those claiming that the exploration of purpose is the province only of esoteric philosophy, you might want to look at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism

So sad that life, the world, the universe exhibit no such design, to start off the empirical inquiries into their respective purposes.

 

[Techne]

It always stuns me how clappers - supposedly infused with the goodness of Holey Ghostey - remain so full of lies and deceit. If this one has to answer your questions he will look a proper tit, in all likelihood. So much for shouting your faith from the rooftops.

Wow, what a vicious ad hominem. Also, there is a difference between being in error and lying. Learn about the difference and apply the principle of charity. No need to be nasty.

PS. To those claiming that the exploration of purpose is the province only of esoteric philosophy, you might want to look at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism

So sad that life, the world, the universe exhibit no such design, to start off the empirical inquiries into their respective purposes.

Wow, more philosophical claims! Why it even fits your label of "speculative junk", yet here you are posting your "speculative junk" in the science section... again.

Also, creation, design and purpose are mutually exclusive terms.

 

[Swa]

In you own words, no quotes and coherent.

You're still missing the boat entirely. It does not matter what "mythical" event occurred or not. The article cites even more "experts" disagreeing with each other. The doctors seem to think they should diagnose bone diseases while anthropologists seem to think only they can. So who the **** does have the qualifications? It's not like we can test their conclusions without referring to their conclusions. If fossils are as well preserved as claimed then it should be a simple task for a doctor. If not then we have the problem of relying on reconstructions. Reconstruction relies largely on the paradigm you're using. We know from past experience that fossils are not nearly as well preserved as people would like them to be and we know how a pigs tooth can take on its own life in the form of your tree swinging great great great ... grandpa.

You're also latching on to the false claim that CreationWiki addresses. None of them cite disease as the only cause but rather an attributing factor. Whatever morphological differences remain look at what the rest say. Even with all the differences, including possible disease related ones, some wouldn't even classify Neanderthal as a different human subspecies.

So are you going to address the points? They are right there in the article you referred to twice.

They're really simple questions which determine whether we're playing the same game.

Again they're irrelevant. Got nothing to do with the points I raised.

 

[Swa]

It always stuns me how clappers - supposedly infused with the goodness of Holey Ghostey - remain so full of lies and deceit. If this one has to answer your questions he will look a proper tit, in all likelihood. So much for shouting your faith from the rooftops.

PS. To those claiming that the exploration of purpose is the province only of esoteric philosophy, you might want to look at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism

So sad that life, the world, the universe exhibit no such design, to start off the empirical inquiries into their respective purposes.

You have been told before, show where the lie is before making an accusation. Just making accusations is baring false witness.

As you are adamant to bring philosophy into this. Life exhibits plenty of even more intricate design that your example. It's your paradigm that interprets it as not having any.

 

[rwenzori]

So are you going to address the points? They are right there in the article you referred to twice.


Again they're irrelevant. Got nothing to do with the points I raised.

Just answer Alloy's question and all ( well, some ) will be forgiven.

 

[rwenzori]

baring false witness

I have visions of a hot norty babe undressing in a courtroom.

As you are adamant to bring philosophy into this. Life exhibits plenty of even more intricate design that your example. It's your paradigm that interprets it as not having any.

All pretty well explicable sonder design. No need to add a Great Designer, or even Pikkiwoki ( may his name be Mud ).

 

[cyghost]

217 posts and not a single scientific and / or sound logical argument against evolution. I find that telling.

 

[CoolBug]

217 posts and not a single scientific and / or sound logical argument against evolution. I find that telling.

Surely this would be an obvious outcome for anyone who understands ToE?

Asking for proof against it is almost trolling.

It is, after all, a science.

Imagine what would happen if there was a thread asking for evidence against gravity or germ theory, or atomic theory.
Quite ludicrous but maybe entertaining to some degree.

 

[porchrat]

Am I the only one dreading the day this Swa character is able to post in PD? We are going to get flooded (hehe ) with creationist schit.