Total Posts:43|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Evidence for Young Earth Creationism, anyone?

Pitbull15
Posts: 479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2014 2:48:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Is such a model viable scientific theory at all? Note this is not about religion in general, this is just about YEC. Do you think it holds any water?
zmikecuber and I debate the Modal Ontological Argument
http://www.debate.org...

"YOU ARE A TOTAL MORON!!! LOL!!!- invisibledeity

"I have shown incredible restraint in the face of unrelenting stupidity."-Izbo10

"Oh my God, WHO THE HELL CARES?!"-Peter Griffin

"Let me put this in Spanish for you: NO!!"-Jase Robertson
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2014 6:38:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/14/2014 2:48:20 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
Is such a model viable scientific theory at all? Note this is not about religion in general, this is just about YEC. Do you think it holds any water?

I have been attempting to learn the answer to this question myself, but it seems most discussions regress to attacking secular viewpoints. I do not believe I have seen evidence for YEC which is irrefutable. For that matter, I don't believe there has been any evidence which has been experimentally verified and published in a complete form in a legitimate peer reviewed journal. Maybe, I am wrong, and someone will show it to be otherwise.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2014 7:41:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/14/2014 6:38:30 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/14/2014 2:48:20 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
Is such a model viable scientific theory at all? Note this is not about religion in general, this is just about YEC. Do you think it holds any water?

I do not believe I have seen evidence for YEC which is irrefutable.

Translation: I have never seen any evidence that I personally could not disprove if I make ridiculous assumptions about religion. Therefore, all Creationist theories are wrong.
SNP1
Posts: 2,407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2014 8:02:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/14/2014 7:41:53 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 3/14/2014 6:38:30 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/14/2014 2:48:20 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
Is such a model viable scientific theory at all? Note this is not about religion in general, this is just about YEC. Do you think it holds any water?

I do not believe I have seen evidence for YEC which is irrefutable.

Translation: I have never seen any evidence that I personally could not disprove if I make ridiculous assumptions about religion. Therefore, all Creationist theories are wrong.

Correct translation: I have not seen any evidence that could be proven, therefore creationsim is still a hypothesis, not a theory.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2014 8:58:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/14/2014 7:41:53 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 3/14/2014 6:38:30 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/14/2014 2:48:20 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
Is such a model viable scientific theory at all? Note this is not about religion in general, this is just about YEC. Do you think it holds any water?

I do not believe I have seen evidence for YEC which is irrefutable.

Translation: I have never seen any evidence that I personally could not disprove if I make ridiculous assumptions about religion. Therefore, all Creationist theories are wrong.

Aww, ad hominem, how cute!
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Cygnus
Posts: 153
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2014 9:21:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/14/2014 7:41:53 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 3/14/2014 6:38:30 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/14/2014 2:48:20 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
Is such a model viable scientific theory at all? Note this is not about religion in general, this is just about YEC. Do you think it holds any water?

I do not believe I have seen evidence for YEC which is irrefutable.

Translation: I have never seen any evidence that I personally could not disprove if I make ridiculous assumptions about religion. Therefore, all Creationist theories are wrong.

Name one that is correct.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2014 4:28:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/15/2014 9:21:30 AM, Cygnus wrote:
At 3/14/2014 7:41:53 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 3/14/2014 6:38:30 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/14/2014 2:48:20 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
Is such a model viable scientific theory at all? Note this is not about religion in general, this is just about YEC. Do you think it holds any water?

I do not believe I have seen evidence for YEC which is irrefutable.

Translation: I have never seen any evidence that I personally could not disprove if I make ridiculous assumptions about religion. Therefore, all Creationist theories are wrong.

Name one that is correct.

I second this.
JonMilne
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2014 4:50:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/15/2014 4:28:29 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/15/2014 9:21:30 AM, Cygnus wrote:
At 3/14/2014 7:41:53 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 3/14/2014 6:38:30 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/14/2014 2:48:20 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
Is such a model viable scientific theory at all? Note this is not about religion in general, this is just about YEC. Do you think it holds any water?

I do not believe I have seen evidence for YEC which is irrefutable.

Translation: I have never seen any evidence that I personally could not disprove if I make ridiculous assumptions about religion. Therefore, all Creationist theories are wrong.

Name one that is correct.

I second this.

I third this.
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2014 8:46:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/15/2014 4:50:20 PM, JonMilne wrote:
At 3/15/2014 4:28:29 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/15/2014 9:21:30 AM, Cygnus wrote:
At 3/14/2014 7:41:53 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 3/14/2014 6:38:30 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/14/2014 2:48:20 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
Is such a model viable scientific theory at all? Note this is not about religion in general, this is just about YEC. Do you think it holds any water?

I do not believe I have seen evidence for YEC which is irrefutable.

Translation: I have never seen any evidence that I personally could not disprove if I make ridiculous assumptions about religion. Therefore, all Creationist theories are wrong.

Name one that is correct.

I second this.

I third this.

The basic Creationist theories about humans coming from dust have been proven correct. Scientists have found that that is where the first lifeforms came from.
Cygnus
Posts: 153
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2014 9:36:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The basic Creationist theories about humans coming from dust have been proven correct. Scientists have found that that is where the first lifeforms came from.

Again, name one.
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2014 9:50:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/15/2014 9:36:01 PM, Cygnus wrote:
The basic Creationist theories about humans coming from dust have been proven correct. Scientists have found that that is where the first lifeforms came from.

Again, name one.

I just did.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2014 10:34:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/15/2014 9:50:18 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 3/15/2014 9:36:01 PM, Cygnus wrote:
The basic Creationist theories about humans coming from dust have been proven correct. Scientists have found that that is where the first lifeforms came from.

Again, name one.

I just did.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Assertions are not adequate. Could you provide a link to the experimental evidence this assertion is based on, please?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2014 10:51:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/15/2014 9:50:18 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 3/15/2014 9:36:01 PM, Cygnus wrote:
The basic Creationist theories about humans coming from dust have been proven correct. Scientists have found that that is where the first lifeforms came from.

Again, name one.

I just did.

Wow, just how vague/abstract can you get?

I predict rain will come from... water! From... somewhere high!
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2014 5:17:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/14/2014 2:48:20 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
Is such a model viable scientific theory at all? Note this is not about religion in general, this is just about YEC. Do you think it holds any water?

Yes, it does. It holds far more water than evolution. Putting aside a priori beliefs in the Bible, it coheres with these facts: that variation occurs in limits, species always produce their like, information requires mental input and that neural processes beg the consciousness they effect. Evolution involves a denial of these facts for it is clear that if bakers evolved over time from bacteria by strictly unguided processes then: variation has no limit, species don't always produce their like, information doesn't need mental input and neural processes equate to consciousness which is deemed illusory or inexistent.

However, the problem I see in YEC is that it is ostensibly religious, close-minded (given a strict adherence to literary Biblical interpretation) and is thus impractical to take it in its totality given the fact that it will run contrary to other religious beliefs and creation myths. There are details I differ with YEC's: 1) I do not claim to know the Earth's age 2) I don't claim to know more precisely how life was created, only that it was and 3) I think their religious approach dampens the possibility of showing the TOE for the falsehood it is

Nevertheless, if I'm given the option between YEC and the modern evolutionary theory I will quickly pick the former.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2014 5:44:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/14/2014 6:38:30 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/14/2014 2:48:20 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
Is such a model viable scientific theory at all? Note this is not about religion in general, this is just about YEC. Do you think it holds any water?

I have been attempting to learn the answer to this question myself, but it seems most discussions regress to attacking secular viewpoints. I do not believe I have seen evidence for YEC which is irrefutable. For that matter, I don't believe there has been any evidence which has been experimentally verified and published in a complete form in a legitimate peer reviewed journal. Maybe, I am wrong, and someone will show it to be otherwise.

I second this completely. They try to kick up a dust storm by inventing words (evolutionism) and slang terms (evos - evoheads), then play the innocent. I wonder if they're children. Meh. Let's hope this doesn't happen on this forum.

Fingers crossed.
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2014 7:09:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/15/2014 10:51:03 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 3/15/2014 9:50:18 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 3/15/2014 9:36:01 PM, Cygnus wrote:
The basic Creationist theories about humans coming from dust have been proven correct. Scientists have found that that is where the first lifeforms came from.

Again, name one.

I just did.

Wow, just how vague/abstract can you get?

I predict rain will come from... water! From... somewhere high!

There are theories in quantum mechanics that are similarly vague/abstract. That doesn't make them wrong.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2014 8:01:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/16/2014 7:09:32 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 3/15/2014 10:51:03 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 3/15/2014 9:50:18 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 3/15/2014 9:36:01 PM, Cygnus wrote:
The basic Creationist theories about humans coming from dust have been proven correct. Scientists have found that that is where the first lifeforms came from.

Again, name one.

I just did.

Wow, just how vague/abstract can you get?

I predict rain will come from... water! From... somewhere high!

There are theories in quantum mechanics that are similarly vague/abstract. That doesn't make them wrong.

Really, like what? I would argue that they are some of the most specific predictions ever made.

And I never made the claim it was wrong, It's not even false....

I can make up any random theory that says 'The sky will be bluish' or 'Flowers will smell nice', it doesn't make it a good one if that's all it does.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2014 9:16:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/14/2014 8:02:05 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/14/2014 7:41:53 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 3/14/2014 6:38:30 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/14/2014 2:48:20 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
Is such a model viable scientific theory at all? Note this is not about religion in general, this is just about YEC. Do you think it holds any water?

I do not believe I have seen evidence for YEC which is irrefutable.

Translation: I have never seen any evidence that I personally could not disprove if I make ridiculous assumptions about religion. Therefore, all Creationist theories are wrong.

Correct translation: I have not seen any evidence that could be proven, therefore creationsim is still a hypothesis, not a theory.

Hypotheses are based on previous literature. In my opinion this is just good ol' fashioned speculation.
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2014 9:16:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/14/2014 8:02:05 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/14/2014 7:41:53 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 3/14/2014 6:38:30 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/14/2014 2:48:20 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
Is such a model viable scientific theory at all? Note this is not about religion in general, this is just about YEC. Do you think it holds any water?

I do not believe I have seen evidence for YEC which is irrefutable.

Translation: I have never seen any evidence that I personally could not disprove if I make ridiculous assumptions about religion. Therefore, all Creationist theories are wrong.

Correct translation: I have not seen any evidence that could be proven, therefore creationsim is still a hypothesis, not a theory.

Hypotheses are based on previous literature. In my opinion this is just good ol' fashioned speculation.
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2014 9:32:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/16/2014 5:17:57 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 3/14/2014 2:48:20 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
Is such a model viable scientific theory at all? Note this is not about religion in general, this is just about YEC. Do you think it holds any water?

Yes, it does. It holds far more water than evolution. Putting aside a priori beliefs in the Bible,

yay! How can Bible belief be a priori anyway? Shouldn't there be reasons to trust the Bible? If there are, then the belief is not a priori. If there are no reasons, such a belief is really strange.

it coheres with these facts: that variation occurs in limits, species always produce their like,

Evolution explains that too. Young Earth Creationism doesn't really have anything unique. It's just Creationism that I think you are talking about. You seem to be talking about the need for God, not the need for a young earth. The problem with YEC is it pretends to be science, while also rejecting empiricism.

information requires mental input and that neural processes beg the consciousness they effect.

Evolution says nothing about consciousness being the same as neurology. That's hardcore physicalism. Cognitive science is highly critical of such an approach, and cognitive science is almost universally accepted (at least for humans) in the academic world.

Evolution involves a denial of these facts for it is clear that if bakers evolved over time from bacteria by strictly unguided processes then: variation has no limit, species don't always produce their like,

Evolution is not unguided. Evolution is guided by natural selection. Those species that failed to pass on their genes died out. The reason we see species that pass on their genes is that they are the only ones that survived all this time. Any hugely-problematic variation dies out quite quickly.

information doesn't need mental input and neural processes equate to consciousness which is deemed illusory or inexistent.

Evolution makes no such claim. I do not think modern psychology/neurology makes such claims either.


However, the problem I see in YEC is that it is ostensibly religious, close-minded (given a strict adherence to literary Biblical interpretation) and is thus impractical to take it in its totality given the fact that it will run contrary to other religious beliefs and creation myths. There are details I differ with YEC's: 1) I do not claim to know the Earth's age 2) I don't claim to know more precisely how life was created, only that it was and 3) I think their religious approach dampens the possibility of showing the TOE for the falsehood it is

Fair enough.

Nevertheless, if I'm given the option between YEC and the modern evolutionary theory I will quickly pick the former.
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2014 9:32:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/15/2014 4:50:20 PM, JonMilne wrote:
At 3/15/2014 4:28:29 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/15/2014 9:21:30 AM, Cygnus wrote:
At 3/14/2014 7:41:53 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 3/14/2014 6:38:30 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/14/2014 2:48:20 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
Is such a model viable scientific theory at all? Note this is not about religion in general, this is just about YEC. Do you think it holds any water?

I do not believe I have seen evidence for YEC which is irrefutable.

Translation: I have never seen any evidence that I personally could not disprove if I make ridiculous assumptions about religion. Therefore, all Creationist theories are wrong.

Name one that is correct.

I second this.

I third this.

I fourth this.
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2014 9:42:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/15/2014 8:46:02 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 3/15/2014 4:50:20 PM, JonMilne wrote:
At 3/15/2014 4:28:29 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/15/2014 9:21:30 AM, Cygnus wrote:
At 3/14/2014 7:41:53 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 3/14/2014 6:38:30 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/14/2014 2:48:20 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
Is such a model viable scientific theory at all? Note this is not about religion in general, this is just about YEC. Do you think it holds any water?

I do not believe I have seen evidence for YEC which is irrefutable.

Translation: I have never seen any evidence that I personally could not disprove if I make ridiculous assumptions about religion. Therefore, all Creationist theories are wrong.

Name one that is correct.

I second this.

I third this.

The basic Creationist theories about humans coming from dust have been proven correct. Scientists have found that that is where the first lifeforms came from.

That's an odd assertion. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Much of dust is made up of organic things such as human skin flakes and pollen. One could say using that knowledge that humans are made from dust, but I think it's obvious that rather humans create skin flakes rather than skin flakes creating humans.

On the other hand, I see little evidence of what you are talking about. If you remove the organic components of dust, little is left.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2014 12:32:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Next time you respond make a distinction between the theory and its theorists. You confuse both throughout your response.

At 3/16/2014 9:32:30 AM, kbub wrote:


yay! How can Bible belief be a priori anyway? Shouldn't there be reasons to trust the Bible? If there are, then the belief is not a priori. If there are no reasons, such a belief is really strange.

What are your reasons for believing good and bad exist ?


Evolution explains that too. Young Earth Creationism doesn't really have anything unique. It's just Creationism that I think you are talking about. You seem to be talking about the need for God, not the need for a young earth. The problem with YEC is it pretends to be science, while also rejecting empiricism.

You don't get it do you, for evolution to work there has to be no limits to the way species can vary. That is a fact it denies by saying its over deep time we can see there is a lack of limit by the change it predicts will take place.


Evolution says nothing about consciousness being the same as neurology. That's hardcore physicalism. Cognitive science is highly critical of such an approach, and cognitive science is almost universally accepted (at least for humans) in the academic world.

First you ignore the part of my statement about information. Then you make false statements. Evolutionists like Dawkins and Coyne have made it clear there consciousness is nothing but what goes on in the brain. It appears the same approach is taken in evolutionary psychology. Cognitive science is not in dispute here.


Evolution is not unguided. Evolution is guided by natural selection. Those species that failed to pass on their genes died out. The reason we see species that pass on their genes is that they are the only ones that survived all this time. Any hugely-problematic variation dies out quite quickly.

Nature guides nothing. The only guiders are men who use NS as a metaphorical tool to say 'evolution did it'. The reason boils down to my first statement, since it doesn't guide natural processes can't even explain the arrival of new traits, and 'problematic variation' die out not because NS weeded it out but because organisms with such traits weren't adapted to their environment. The environment doesn't make nor select for traits, the traits are specific to environments with varying degrees of adaptability. This is what NS blinds one too.


Evolution makes no such claim. I do not think modern psychology/neurology makes such claims either.

Again you avoid the part about information. And evolution does require a denial of dualism. In fact, the de facto position in neuroscience and psychiatry is to approach the mind as strictly being the brain at work.


Fair enough.

Great. We agree on something.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2014 1:31:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/16/2014 12:32:55 PM, Iredia wrote:
Next time you respond make a distinction between the theory and its theorists. You confuse both throughout your response.

At 3/16/2014 9:32:30 AM, kbub wrote:



yay! How can Bible belief be a priori anyway? Shouldn't there be reasons to trust the Bible? If there are, then the belief is not a priori. If there are no reasons, such a belief is really strange.

What are your reasons for believing good and bad exist ?

The world, gut instinct, what people tell me, reason, and sure, the Bible among other great works.

About "a priori." I mean, I read the Bible with my senses, so one example of something that might come "before" the bible would be my sensory experiences. Another would be knowledge of language, another experiences (say, spiritual experiences). I don't think it's possible to be logically-consistent in holding a piece of literature as "a priori" knowledge. I don't believe any knowledge is truly a priori, but a book is pretty far down on the list, no matter how trustworthy.



Evolution explains that too. Young Earth Creationism doesn't really have anything unique. It's just Creationism that I think you are talking about. You seem to be talking about the need for God, not the need for a young earth. The problem with YEC is it pretends to be science, while also rejecting empiricism.

You don't get it do you, for evolution to work there has to be no limits to the way species can vary. That is a fact it denies by saying its over deep time we can see there is a lack of limit by the change it predicts will take place.


I'm not really sure what you are saying. Do you mind rewording a bit to clarify?


Evolution says nothing about consciousness being the same as neurology. That's hardcore physicalism. Cognitive science is highly critical of such an approach, and cognitive science is almost universally accepted (at least for humans) in the academic world.

First you ignore the part of my statement about information. Then you make false statements. Evolutionists like Dawkins and Coyne have made it clear there consciousness is nothing but what goes on in the brain. It appears the same approach is taken in evolutionary psychology. Cognitive science is not in dispute here.


Could you clarify what I ignored? I don't think I made any false statements, but I'm open to corrections. What evolutionists say and what evolution says can be very different. I'm not sure what Dawkins and Coyne say on the matter, but I do have a pretty good handle on what psychologists say on the matter. What materialists or physicalist might use evolution as a justification for reducing the mind (consciousness) into material terms, this is not an integral part of evolution at all. I feel quite confident about this, but I could be mistaken. About cognitive science--cognitive science is deeply connected to psychology, especially cognitive psychology. I do think both are relevant. Do you mind referencing where evolutionary psychology states that the consciousness is the same as the brain? Neurologists, in my narrow experience, usually do not confuse the 'brain' with the 'mind.'


Evolution is not unguided. Evolution is guided by natural selection. Those species that failed to pass on their genes died out. The reason we see species that pass on their genes is that they are the only ones that survived all this time. Any hugely-problematic variation dies out quite quickly.

Nature guides nothing. The only guiders are men who use NS as a metaphorical tool to say 'evolution did it'. The reason boils down to my first statement, since it doesn't guide natural processes can't even explain the arrival of new traits, and 'problematic variation' die out not because NS weeded it out but because organisms with such traits weren't adapted to their environment. The environment doesn't make nor select for traits, the traits are specific to environments with varying degrees of adaptability. This is what NS blinds one too.


Does NS stand for "natural selection?"
Ok, well let me try to explain what I mean by "nature guiding;" I might be communicating poorly. Nature can guide animal populations to migrate--supposing there is a drought in an area, the population would probably move. This just makes sense. They didn't move "randomly;" they moved because of environmental aspects.

You're right in a sense by saying evolution didn't "do" anything; a pattern change often occurs, and we call that change "evolution."

To quote part of what you said before: "'problematic variation' die out not because NS weeded it out but because organisms with such traits weren't adapted to their environment. " I think we sort of agree. When organisms die out because they aren't adapted to either environment, that is natural selection. In fact, that's all natural selection is.

Now, where new traits come in is rather interesting. In asexual reproduction, you can actually track small changes over time--there are slight bits of genetic recombination that occur. In sexual animals and plants, more obvious recombinations occur. Some of these recombinations are considered "mutations." Many of these mutations do not work out, and the animal is less likely to reproduce (and the trait dies). However, many of these traits effectively engage in a cycle of being passed down--(that is, the trait survives many generations effectively). The creatures with this trait might eventually outlive all of the old kind, and thus a new trait has been introduced to that species.

Now, I say that there are limits to this process, not in any hypothetical sense about what would have happened had chemicals been different billions of years ago (although such infinite possibilities might real if one were to include alien planets), but instead I mean that the changes are limited by the environment and by genetics/biology.


Evolution makes no such claim. I do not think modern psychology/neurology makes such claims either.

Again you avoid the part about information. And evolution does require a denial of dualism. In fact, the de facto position in neuroscience and psychiatry is to approach the mind as strictly being the brain at work.


Sorry about missing your information point. Could you clarify it for me?

If I may offer my two cents: Although evolution describes only physical processes, this does not mean that it denies non-physical processes. Non-physical processes would be hard to do an experiment on, however. Therefore, the evolutionary model only works within the limits of what it can study, which is the physical processes in most cases (with the exception of some sciences such as cognitive science).
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2014 3:24:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/16/2014 1:31:43 PM, kbub wrote:
At 3/16/2014 12:32:55 PM, Iredia wrote:
Next time you respond make a distinction between the theory and its theorists. You confuse both throughout your response.

At 3/16/2014 9:32:30 AM, kbub wrote:



yay! How can Bible belief be a priori anyway? Shouldn't there be reasons to trust the Bible? If there are, then the belief is not a priori. If there are no reasons, such a belief is really strange.

What are your reasons for believing good and bad exist ?

The world, gut instinct, what people tell me, reason, and sure, the Bible among other great works.

About "a priori." I mean, I read the Bible with my senses, so one example of something that might come "before" the bible would be my sensory experiences. Another would be knowledge of language, another experiences (say, spiritual experiences). I don't think it's possible to be logically-consistent in holding a piece of literature as "a priori" knowledge. I don't believe any knowledge is truly a priori, but a book is pretty far down on the list, no matter how trustworthy.

Where knowledge is unobservable in principle I think its a priori; examples are joy, justice, love, hate, good, pain et al. We observe expressions of it but not the subjective experience as to the thing or person. In any case, I used a priori wrongly I should have said 'presupposed Biblical beliefs' or something of that sort.



I'm not really sure what you are saying. Do you mind rewording a bit to clarify?

As far as we can see there are limits to how species vary. No one sees horses with wings, or goats with zebra markings. For evolution to be valid there shouldn't be a limit to the variation a progeny can get from its ancestor. For example, for fishes to have evolved into reptiles; a fish which could survive on land with fins had to birth another one with legs or some other reptilian feature eg extended tails. Gradualism merely dilutes saltation, it doesn't abolish it.



Could you clarify what I ignored? I don't think I made any false statements, but I'm open to corrections. What evolutionists say and what evolution says can be very different. I'm not sure what Dawkins and Coyne say on the matter, but I do have a pretty good handle on what psychologists say on the matter. What materialists or physicalist might use evolution as a justification for reducing the mind (consciousness) into material terms, this is not an integral part of evolution at all. I feel quite confident about this, but I could be mistaken. About cognitive science--cognitive science is deeply connected to psychology, especially cognitive psychology. I do think both are relevant. Do you mind referencing where evolutionary psychology states that the consciousness is the same as the brain? Neurologists, in my narrow experience, usually do not confuse the 'brain' with the 'mind.'

I make a distinction between the implications of the theory itself and what people say about it. I can't provide the reference you ask for: my view was gleaned from various sources that will be hard to trace. But I can say, that the theory ignores the fact you acknowledge_that the brain is not the mind. It is routinely assumed that evolution of the brain is synonymous with that of the mind. Wikipedia's article on 'the modularity of the mind' partly supports this.



Does NS stand for "natural selection?"
Ok, well let me try to explain what I mean by "nature guiding;" I might be communicating poorly. Nature can guide animal populations to migrate--supposing there is a drought in an area, the population would probably move. This just makes sense. They didn't move "randomly;" they moved because of environmental aspects.

You're right in a sense by saying evolution didn't "do" anything; a pattern change often occurs, and we call that change "evolution."

To quote part of what you said before: "'problematic variation' die out not because NS weeded it out but because organisms with such traits weren't adapted to their environment. " I think we sort of agree. When organisms die out because they aren't adapted to either environment, that is natural selection. In fact, that's all natural selection is.

Now, where new traits come in is rather interesting. In asexual reproduction, you can actually track small changes over time--there are slight bits of genetic recombination that occur. In sexual animals and plants, more obvious recombinations occur. Some of these recombinations are considered "mutations." Many of these mutations do not work out, and the animal is less likely to reproduce (and the trait dies). However, many of these traits effectively engage in a cycle of being passed down--(that is, the trait survives many generations effectively). The creatures with this trait might eventually outlive all of the old kind, and thus a new trait has been introduced to that species.

Now, I say that there are limits to this process, not in any hypothetical sense about what would have happened had chemicals been different billions of years ago (although such infinite possibilities might real if one were to include alien planets), but instead I mean that the changes are limited by the environment and by genetics/biology.

In your drought example Nature didn't guide them, the organisms moved as behavioral adaptation. Some organisms like lungfish won't move, it hibernates in a cocoon till the next rainfall.

It's true we sort of agree and it's true that what I've described is NS but only partly so. The distinction I make is that: 1) NS must be viewed from the standpoint of an organism and its adaptive traits, not from its abiotic environment which doesn't meaningfully select for traits 2) differential survival of organisms doesn't explain the arrival of their traits and 3) Nature owns no need to preserve organisms with novel adaptive traits resulting from random mutations_or make them reproduce more_and in that sense refutes the argument that NS is law-like.

Genetic recombination isn't random mutation. It is directed by enzymes and is more importantly doesn't happen in Hox genes (highly conserved genes critical to body plans). It is precisely the mechanism which allows for some level of variation in traits of a species. And your admission of limits serves to strengthen my stance.



Sorry about missing your information point. Could you clarify it for me?

If I may offer my two cents: Although evolution describes only physical processes, this does not mean that it denies non-physical processes. Non-physical processes would be hard to do an experiment on, however. Therefore, the evolutionary model only works within the limits of what it can study, which is the physical processes in most cases (with the exception of some sciences such as cognitive science).

Noted. I stated that evolution denies mental input as prerequisite to information (ie genetic code). Supposedly, unguided natural processes can effect this but 1) we have no natural precedents of this 2) experiments meant to show this tend to smartly interfere as opposed to simply simulating natural processes which effect coded systems.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2014 4:39:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/16/2014 3:24:06 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 3/16/2014 1:31:43 PM, kbub wrote:
At 3/16/2014 12:32:55 PM, Iredia wrote:
Next time you respond make a distinction between the theory and its theorists. You confuse both throughout your response.

At 3/16/2014 9:32:30 AM, kbub wrote:

As far as we can see there are limits to how species vary. No one sees horses with wings, or goats with zebra markings. For evolution to be valid there shouldn't be a limit to the variation a progeny can get from its ancestor.

Thanks for the clarification. I'd says there are two main limits that are interconnected. Species are limited by (1) non-replication and (2) physics (and chemistry, etc). If they die, they can't replicate their traits. If they have have random useless body parts sticking out of various places, they will not have enough energy to reproduce. Similarly, if they die from starvation because they are not competitive enough, they will die also.

The second one is physics. Species cannot deny the laws of physics in order to make new variation. For the most part they do go through slow changes and not saltation, expect for very rare circumstances. That is to day, even if something would be advantageous that does not necessarily mean that change is going to happen.

Additionally, it seems like you might be assuming that there were an infinite number of life instances in an evolutionary model. This is not the case.

For example, for fishes to have evolved into reptiles; a fish which could survive on land with fins had to birth another one with legs or some other reptilian feature eg extended tails. Gradualism merely dilutes saltation, it doesn't abolish it.

I think I see where you are going. A fish might evolve to spend more time in shallower water, then in wetlands, than onto land for a short while (maybe to escape predators). Your cricism is based on generalizations and not evidence, so I hope you don't mind if I don't give citations. I'm sure the evolution of lizards is a well-thought out and open to criticsm, but it is evidence-based. I'm simply pointing out it isn't illogical.

Here's a basic summary link: http://evolution.berkeley.edu...




Could you clarify what I ignored? I don't think I made any false statements, but I'm open to corrections. What evolutionists say and what evolution says can be very different. I'm not sure what Dawkins and Coyne say on the matter, but I do have a pretty good handle on what psychologists say on the matter. What materialists or physicalist might use evolution as a justification for reducing the mind (consciousness) into material terms, this is not an integral part of evolution at all. I feel quite confident about this, but I could be mistaken. About cognitive science--cognitive science is deeply connected to psychology, especially cognitive psychology. I do think both are relevant. Do you mind referencing where evolutionary psychology states that the consciousness is the same as the brain? Neurologists, in my narrow experience, usually do not confuse the 'brain' with the 'mind.'

I make a distinction between the implications of the theory itself and what people say about it. I can't provide the reference you ask for: my view was gleaned from various sources that will be hard to trace. But I can say, that the theory ignores the fact you acknowledge_that the brain is not the mind. It is routinely assumed that evolution of the brain is synonymous with that of the mind. Wikipedia's article on 'the modularity of the mind' partly supports this.

Um, the articles says that it is a particular study of a particular branch of evolutionary science that suggests "a mind may, at least in part, be composed of innate neural structures or modules which have distinct established evolutionarily developed functions." [bold added]



Does NS stand for "natural selection?"
Ok, well let me try to explain what I mean by "nature guiding;" I might be communicating poorly. Nature can guide animal populations to migrate--supposing there is a drought in an area, the population would probably move. This just makes sense. They didn't move "randomly;" they moved because of environmental aspects.

You're right in a sense by saying evolution didn't "do" anything; a pattern change often occurs, and we call that change "evolution."

To quote part of what you said before: "'problematic variation' die out not because NS weeded it out but because organisms with such traits weren't adapted to their environment. " I think we sort of agree. When organisms die out because they aren't adapted to either environment, that is natural selection. In fact, that's all natural selection is.

Now, where new traits come in is rather interesting. In asexual reproduction, you can actually track small changes over time--there are slight bits of genetic recombination that occur. In sexual animals and plants, more obvious recombinations occur. Some of these recombinations are considered "mutations." Many of these mutations do not work out, and the animal is less likely to reproduce (and the trait dies). However, many of these traits effectively engage in a cycle of being passed down--(that is, the trait survives many generations effectively). The creatures with this trait might eventually outlive all of the old kind, and thus a new trait has been introduced to that species.

Now, I say that there are limits to this process, not in any hypothetical sense about what would have happened had chemicals been different billions of years ago (although such infinite possibilities might real if one were to include alien planets), but instead I mean that the changes are limited by the environment and by genetics/biology.

In your drought example Nature didn't guide them, the organisms moved as behavioral adaptation. Some organisms like lungfish won't move, it hibernates in a cocoon till the next rainfall.

k


It's true we sort of agree and it's true that what I've described is NS but only partly so. The distinction I make is that: 1) NS must be viewed from the standpoint of an organism and its adaptive traits, not from its abiotic environment which doesn't meaningfully select for traits

What distinguishes adaptive and not is the organism's environment. If there is no light growing eyes wastes energy, and those fish don't reproduce.

2) differential survival of organisms doesn't explain the arrival of their traits and

mutation

3) Nature owns no need to preserve organisms with novel adaptive traits...sense refutes the argument that NS is law-like.

Indeed, but the one's that didn't have the trait died long ago. Nothing law-like; it worked out.


Genetic recombination isn't random mutation....

Correct, but sometimes mutations occur as genes are being reorganized, or even in asexual reproduction.


Sorry about missing your information point. Could you clarify it for me?

If I may offer my two cents: Although evolution describes only physical processes, this does not mean that it denies non-physical processes. Non-physical processes would be hard to do an experiment on, however. Therefore, the evolutionary model only works within the limits of what it can study, which is the physical processes in most cases (with the exception of some sciences such as cognitive science).

Noted. I stated that evolution denies mental input as prerequisite to information (ie genetic code). Supposedly, unguided natural processes can effect this but 1) we have no natural precedents of this

Except every species. Anyway, this subject is abiogenesis, not evolution.

2) experiments meant to show this tend to smartly interfere as opposed to simply simulating natural processes which effect coded systems.

Reviewing the above sente
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2014 4:45:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
@ kbub: Are you sure the above is your response ?
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2014 5:23:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/16/2014 4:39:18 PM, kbub wrote:


Thanks for the clarification. I'd says there are two main limits that are interconnected. Species are limited by (1) non-replication and (2) physics (and chemistry, etc). If they die, they can't replicate their traits. If they have have random useless body parts sticking out of various places, they will not have enough energy to reproduce. Similarly, if they die from starvation because they are not competitive enough, they will die also.

The second one is physics. Species cannot deny the laws of physics in order to make new variation. For the most part they do go through slow changes and not saltation, expect for very rare circumstances. That is to day, even if something would be advantageous that does not necessarily mean that change is going to happen.

Denying salatation really doesn't help because it is clear that to get from one distnict body plan to another a jump must be made. Gradualism glosses over impracticalities that occur fot this to happen.
I_for example_don't see how a theropod will survive much less thrive with wings of any sort.


Additionally, it seems like you might be assuming that there were an infinite number of life instances in an evolutionary model. This is not the case.

Why not ? Or maybe you misunderstand me, I'm well aware of valleys in a fitness landcape; IOW, that some mix of traits won't work, but random mutations are blind to this.


I think I see where you are going. A fish might evolve to spend more time in shallower water, then in wetlands, than onto land for a short while (maybe to escape predators). Your cricism is based on generalizations and not evidence, so I hope you don't mind if I don't give citations. I'm sure the evolution of lizards is a well-thought out and open to criticsm, but it is evidence-based. I'm simply pointing out it isn't illogical.

Here's a basic summary link: http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

And now we have moved so far away from the facts on ground and entered into speculations that deny the said fact: that variations occur in limits. Seeing that your evolutionists at UCLA believe universal common ancestry they can readily reinterpret the data to suit it. And yet here you are saying I'm making 'generalizations', when as it stands all the facts of speciation, artificial selection and reproduction, tells us that variations work within limits.


Um, the articles says that it is a particular study of a particular branch of evolutionary science that suggests "a mind may, at least in part, be composed of innate neural structures or modules which have distinct established evolutionarily developed functions." [bold added]

Which is why I said 'partly supports'. The more important point is that it ignores how the neural processes beg for the mind.


What distinguishes adaptive and not is the organism's environment. If there is no light growing eyes wastes energy, and those fish don't reproduce.

I don't get you here. Explain yourself please.


mutation

Random mutations generally degrade the genome and destroy traits.


Indeed, but the one's that didn't have the trait died long ago. Nothing law-like; it worked out.

Saying it 'worked out' reaffirms that NS as law-like. And your statement is contradicted by the fact that many organisms have largely remained the same over deep time eg cyanobacteria


Correct, but sometimes mutations occur as genes are being reorganized, or even in asexual reproduction.

This undermines random mutations as an evolutionary mechanism.


Except every species. Anyway, this subject is abiogene[sis]

I find attempts to seperate abiogenesis from evolution to be disingenious when prebiological mutation and NS supposedly explains how life evolved from proto-cells.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Cygnus
Posts: 153
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2014 5:51:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/15/2014 9:50:18 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 3/15/2014 9:36:01 PM, Cygnus wrote:
The basic Creationist theories about humans coming from dust have been proven correct. Scientists have found that that is where the first lifeforms came from.

Again, name one.

I just did.

No you didn't. You have simply referred to circular logic.

Name one creationist theory that is correct.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2014 6:17:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Random mutations generally degrade the genome and destroy traits.

Oh rly? And where did you get this information from? Got a good reference?

Also just what do you think would happen to an animal that lost had those traits in the wild?

Well they'd die off, wouldn't they effectively removing their dodgy genome from the gene pool.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...