- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Stu,
I may be confusing you by using two different types of arguments in the same thread.
I am using logical reasoning to prove that except for the fact that an individual is unable to prove anything except that they exist because they think. From that point on the rest is assumed or in other words taken on faith. This is important because it helps us realize that the difference on our points of views can be what we assume or take on faith. Sometimes we will be at odds because of factors we ourselves have not considered because we have become certain of them through “practice”.
On the other front I am using knowledge of an old philosophical theory and my own or other’s observation of certain things in nature to argue for an Artificer existing. That takes certain points of faith such as the faith that there is a physical world and that the observations I am using are accurate as well as the faith that machines cannot be made without the direction of intelligence.
This brings us to third point where you are saying according to Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection machines can be made without natural section. I pointed to the fact that Darwin’s scientific methodology was flawed in his choice of a theory of human development. This is a way to show he is not creditable as a reliable witness as he is shown to have inferior work in the field of biology. I also used the fact that his theory of natural selection relied on the incorrect theory of animal development he supported. That shows his variance of the theory of natural selection is wrong.
The problem is, that for reasons I am not aware of and may be similar to why Galileo was persecuted in his time, is we the “little people” have not been kept up to date on the current theories of natural selection. At this point it comes up to the fact that you put more faith in the experts than I happen to. This is because I tend to think they are subject to the same temptations to distort the truth for their own reasons as everyone else is. Peer review does catch some of it but politics of various types tends to play havoc with things.
One of my complaints is that I have not yet heard of a theory of natural selection that is based on DNA and not morphology. The later has been acknowledged by scientist to be flawed and still is in use. Perhaps like BMI they have not come up with a better idea but even if that is the case it does not reflect well on the theory of evolution.
A second of my complaints is that I have heard of a change in an allele being evolution. That is pure nonsense as there are often a number of different alleles of the same gene in a given population. Hypothetically I am prone to believe that an actual change of one gene to another is evidence to support the theory of evolution. I could be wrong on that for the simple reason I am ignorant of whether such occurs and if the occurrence of such actually transforms a living creature significantly enough to be labeled evolution.
I am of course taking other things on faith when I make my third point and one is that my sources of information are reliable.
Your fellow student,
Kerwin
kerwin
Quote I am using logical reasoning to prove that except for the fact that an individual is unable to prove anything except that they exist because they think. From that point on the rest is assumed or in other words taken on faith. This is important because it helps us realize that the difference on our points of views can be what we assume or take on faith. Sometimes we will be at odds because of factors we ourselves have not considered because we have become certain of them through “practice”.
I think you have it the wrong way round. Once you have accepted assumptions like the Descartian one you mention, or the assumption that what you see is actually what you get, then you don’t need to take anything on faith at all. Do you call those assumptions faith positions? If you did then it makes for a pretty confusing theology I would think.Quote On the other front I am using knowledge of an old philosophical theory and my own or other’s observation of certain things in nature to argue for an Artificer existing. That takes certain points of faith such as the faith that there is a physical world and that the observations I am using are accurate as well as the faith that machines cannot be made without the direction of intelligence.
So in other words you are asserting the things you wish to prove, ie using invalid circular logic.Quote This brings us to third point where you are saying according to Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection machines can be made without natural section. I pointed to the fact that Darwin’s scientific methodology was flawed in his choice of a theory of human development.
Did you?Quote This is a way to show he is not creditable as a reliable witness as he is shown to have inferior work in the field of biology. I also used the fact that his theory of natural selection relied on the incorrect theory of animal development he supported. That shows his variance of the theory of natural selection is wrong.
You don’t have the first clue about what you are talking about, do you.Quote The problem is, that for reasons I am not aware of and may be similar to why Galileo was persecuted in his time, is we the “little people” have not been kept up to date on the current theories of natural selection.
Whose responsibility do you think that is?Quote At this point it comes up to the fact that you put more faith in the experts than I happen to. This is because I tend to think they are subject to the same temptations to distort the truth for their own reasons as everyone else is. Peer review does catch some of it but politics of various types tends to play havoc with things.
Blah, ignorant blah. Sorry kerwin you need to learn something concrete about all this before you just mouth off.Quote One of my complaints is that I have not yet heard of a theory of natural selection that is based on DNA and not morphology.
That is because you “little people” have not been kept up with theories of natural selection, I suppose.Quote The later has been acknowledged by scientist to be flawed and still is in use. Perhaps like BMI they have not come up with a better idea but even if that is the case it does not reflect well on the theory of evolution.
Are you drunk?Quote A second of my complaints is that I have heard of a change in an allele being evolution. That is pure nonsense as there are often a number of different alleles of the same gene in a given population.
Like you say, it is pure nonsense. Evolution is actually the result of change in allele frequency in a population. Of course from time to time that will mean the appearance of new alleles by mutation of old ones.Quote Hypothetically I am prone to believe that an actual change of one gene to another is evidence to support the theory of evolution. I could be wrong on that for the simple reason I am ignorant of whether such occurs and if the occurrence of such actually transforms a living creature significantly enough to be labeled evolution.
Humans have about 30,000 working genes. Any change in the frequency of any one of them constitutes evolution. The fact is there is pressure on many of them all at the same time, and evolution is happening to humans right now.Quote I am of course taking other things on faith when I make my third point and one is that my sources of information are reliable.
You need to get better sources then.Stuart
Stu,
As I pointed out you are ignorant about certain things and genetics seem to be one. The frequency of a certain allele in a population of grey hounds is not the same as the frequency of the same allele in a population of Alaskan Huskies even though they are both the same species. Thus you have a case when the frequency of an allele in a population is not evolution.
On the other hand I know that a cat and dog have different genes. Thus I am more likely to believe that a difference in genes even is some genes are the same is evidence of evolution.
Descartes logical conclusion that one exists because they think is a fact and anyone that chooses to deny that is simply denying what is self evident. People are irrational when they deny the obvious but I do not take them serious when they do as they give up their creditability in behaving irrational.
To have faith in an idea is believing that ideal is true even though you cannot prove and if you are confident an assumption is true it fits that definition as you cannot prove assumptions.
As for scientists acknowledging morphology is a bad indicator of relationship, you should check when they have had to change their idea of how species are related because the genetics indicate that certain species are differently related than their forms indicated. In addition you also have what is called parallel and convergent evolution.
So when you state with such confidence that any change in the frequency of a gene, I assume you mean allele, is evolution that you are stating that either Blacks are an evolved form or Whites or that Whites are an evolved form of Blacks. I am going to definitely disagree with you on that one though Charles Darwin did voice that opinion. On the other hand if you mean gene, I am not sure there is a significant difference in genes within a given population. I assume that some within a particular population may lack a gene or genes much like other defects exist within a given population.
I am rather omnivorous in my sources in that I access everything from the works of Charles Darwin to newspaper articles about species, evolution, and the like. I do test them against each other and rate them at different levels of accuracy depending on their reputed quality.
Your fellow student,
Kerwin
kerwin
Quote As I pointed out you are ignorant about certain things and genetics seem to be one. The frequency of a certain allele in a population of grey hounds is not the same as the frequency of the same allele in a population of Alaskan Huskies even though they are both the same species. Thus you have a case when the frequency of an allele in a population is not evolution.
In the case of dogs it is evolution by artificial selection. Are you saying that evolution is not evolution unless it results in a new species?Quote Descartes logical conclusion that one exists because they think is a fact and anyone that chooses to deny that is simply denying what is self evident.
It remains a premise on which you base other logical arguments, and actually it is missing the part that says “whatever is capable of thinking exists”, which really is an assertion when written in that form.Quote People are irrational when they deny the obvious but I do not take them serious when they do as they give up their creditability in behaving irrational.
You understand my attitude to creationists then.Quote To have faith in an idea is believing that ideal is true even though you cannot prove and if you are confident an assumption is true it fits that definition as you cannot prove assumptions.
I believe that Newton’s Law of gravitation is universally applicable even though I cannot prove it. That is not a faith position.Quote As for scientists acknowledging morphology is a bad indicator of relationship, you should check when they have had to change their idea of how species are related because the genetics indicate that certain species are differently related than their forms indicated. In addition you also have what is called parallel and convergent evolution.
I suppose the most striking example of that is the close relationship between cetaceans and hippopotami.Quote So when you state with such confidence that any change in the frequency of a gene, I assume you mean allele,
You are quite right, I should have written allele frequency.Quote I am rather omnivorous in my sources in that I access everything from the works of Charles Darwin to newspaper articles about species, evolution, and the like. I do test them against each other and rate them at different levels of accuracy depending on their reputed quality.
You appeared to be saying that you take your sources on faith. Provisional acceptance of peer-reviewed papers that present primary research is not something I think would require faith.Stuart
Stu,
I suppose that depends on what you mean by evolution. I was actually speaking of evolution in the context of one “species” changing into another. I put “species” in quotes because it is an arbitrary definition that is not even consistent as there is more than one definition. I used “cat” and “dog” as opposed to two different “species “of butterfly for that reason.
I would declare that a change in allele in more of an increase in mutations within a genetic pool. Sometimes it can cause a pool to diverge but that is more like forming two different breeds of the same animal and not what I consider to be truly different “species”.
Creationists are not necessary irrational, but you seem to be. I conclude this as it appears that you fail to understand that you choose to take certain things as being true that you are unable to prove while they also choose to take other things as being true that they are unable to be true. If this is correct then it is your inability to realize that you are similar to them that is irrational on your part though perhaps in tune with the fallen nature of human beings.
If you believe Newton’s Law is universally applicable and yet cannot prove that it is so then it is indeed a position of faith as believing what you cannot prove fits the definition of faith.
I do not believe that whales and ungulates are the best example of my point as some believe the earlier descended from the later. A better example is viviparity which is believed to have “evolved” many times in many groups of animals.
I tend to question everything so I even question the experts even those who have been peer reviewed at least to the point I am able to. Of course sometimes I cannot question much as I know little. What I find though that process I take on faith until it is discredited. In some cases I instead tend to view it as an intellectual exercise with no concrete conclusion depending on what is being addressed.
Your fellow student,
Kerwin
Quote In the case of dogs it is evolution by artificial selection. Are you saying that evolution is not evolution unless it results in a new species? I think what he is saying is that evolution (slow change) happens. It's happening to me right now, slowly. I'm slowly changing into a much older version of myself. A wolflike dog changes to a wild dog which changes eventually to a chihuahua. But they are all still dogs. When most people on here speak of evolution or the theory of evolution, I'm certain they are speaking of evolution of one definable species into another.
Stu, again, I think you should spend more time presenting evidence for evolution instead of having these philisophical like debates.
David,
I actually enjoy philosphical debates as I find the stimilating to the mind.
The evolution for or aganist the various theories of evolution is open to interpretation just like scripture.
I tend to believe God is more interested in our correctly interpreting certain parts of scripture than he is the the evidence of what he did with lifeforms in the past or even is doing now.
Your fellow student,
Kerwin
Quote (david @ July 30 2010,15:04) Quote In the case of dogs it is evolution by artificial selection. Are you saying that evolution is not evolution unless it results in a new species? I think what he is saying is that evolution (slow change) happens. It's happening to me right now, slowly. I'm slowly changing into a much older version of myself. A wolflike dog changes to a wild dog which changes eventually to a chihuahua. But they are all still dogs. When most people on here speak of evolution or the theory of evolution, I'm certain they are speaking of evolution of one definable species into another.
Stu, again, I think you should spend more time presenting evidence for evolution instead of having these philisophical like debates.
Regarding dogs, the changes have not been slow. On the timescale of evolution the domestication of the dog has been induced by human selection in relatively no time at all.Evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population. That does lead to speciation, but I speciation is not a prerequisite for calling the changes “evolution”. Species are arbitrary categories that are loosely related to possibilities of interbreeding where that is applicable.
Stuart
kerwin
Quote I would declare that a change in allele in more of an increase in mutations within a genetic pool. Sometimes it can cause a pool to diverge but that is more like forming two different breeds of the same animal and not what I consider to be truly different “species”.
Huh?Quote Creationists are not necessary irrational, but you seem to be. I conclude this as it appears that you fail to understand that you choose to take certain things as being true that you are unable to prove while they also choose to take other things as being true that they are unable to be true.
I don't claim to be able to prove anything in relation to science, and I am not trying to make models of the world on the basis of purely logical arguments. We have moved on from ancient Greece, you know. Nor do I contruct my truth starting with the premise that a book of mythology written by ignorant bronze-age Jews is absolute truth regardless of what is observed in nature.Quote If this is correct then it is your inability to realize that you are similar to them that is irrational on your part though perhaps in tune with the fallen nature of human beings.
Since I base my reality on reality, and the creationist bases his reality on fantasy, then there is no comparison between us.Quote If you believe Newton’s Law is universally applicable and yet cannot prove that it is so then it is indeed a position of faith as believing what you cannot prove fits the definition of faith.
Faith is believing in the absence of evidence. I generalise on the basis that we have thusfar observed no case where the laws of gravitation do not apply (at least in relation to energy and matter). I just said I believe it to be true, but it remains that I would be happy to be proved wrong by the discovery of an exception. Do you think those who hold things on faith are happy to be proved wrong? If that were true there would be no such thing as creationism.Quote I do not believe that whales and ungulates are the best example of my point as some believe the earlier descended from the later. A better example is viviparity which is believed to have “evolved” many times in many groups of animals.
What was the point you were making about convergent evolution?Quote I tend to question everything so I even question the experts even those who have been peer reviewed at least to the point I am able to. Of course sometimes I cannot question much as I know little. What I find though that process I take on faith until it is discredited. In some cases I instead tend to view it as an intellectual exercise with no concrete conclusion depending on what is being addressed.
Just as well scientific progress has not waited for your approval. I don't take these things on faith, I take them on trust, based on the social contract that professional scientists have to provide the highest quality, most impartial information they can, and the evidence that peer-reviewed science consistently works. Neither applies to the fatuous nonsense produced by creationists.Stuart
Stu,
As I pointed out your beliefs are a fantasy that you choose to believe in because you cannot prove them. You cannot even prove that dinosaurs were once a living creature instead of some type of construct. You cannot in fact prove that life is not a dream though you choose to believe it.
That is the interesing thing about logical reasoning as it points out that those who claim to be rational are often irrational.
It is more profitable when having a discussion though to find out what basic beliefs you are those you have in common with those your in discussion with. In some cases you can assume that you share enough of the same beliefs that your discussion can be fruitful but I doubt you do share enough with those arguing for one of the various theories of Creation.
I have no idea what the beliefs, past or pressent, of the Jehovah's Witnesses are about the theory Creation or what they base those beliefs on. I do know that some Creationists view the account in Genisis as the actual word of God and therefore the word of an unimpeachable witness while scientists and other experts are human beings and therefore are subject to error. They also believe their interpretation of the biblical is absolutly correct.
Your fellow student,
Kerwin
Edited to better tie it into the origional post of this thread.
kerwin
Quote As I pointed out your beliefs are a fantasy that you choose to believe in because you cannot prove them. You cannot even prove that dinosaurs were once a living creature instead of some type of construct. You cannot in fact prove that life is not a dream though you choose to believe it.
The impossibility of proving anything does not make what I believe a fantasy. That would be another logical fallacy on your part. Fantasy is when you believe something that has no foundation in reality. That is not true of what I believe.Quote That is the interesing thing about logical reasoning as it points out that those who claim to be rational are often irrational.
It is you who has the logically fallacious arguments, not me. Do you know what logical fallacy is?Quote It is more profitable when having a discussion though to find out what basic beliefs you are those you have in common with those your in discussion with. In some cases you can assume that you share enough of the same beliefs that your discussion can be fruitful but I doubt you do share enough with those arguing for one of the various theories of Creation.
The various theories of creation?? There is no scientific theory of creation at all!Quote I have no idea what the beliefs, past or pressent, of the Jehovah's Witnesses are about the theory Creation or what they base those beliefs on. I do know that some Creationists view the account in Genisis as the actual word of God and therefore the word of an unimpeachable witness while scientists and other experts are human beings and therefore are subject to error. They also believe their interpretation of the biblical is absolutly correct.
All dull, routine, forgettable mythology that is not even third-class knowledge in comparison with the scientific account.Stuart
Sturt,
First, what you regard as reality can be just a figment of your own self delusion and some extend most likely is.
Second, One definition at dictionary.reference.com is that a fantasy is “a supposition based on no solid foundation” You have already admitted you cannot prove what you believe which means your belief has no solid foundation. Given those two premises the local conclusion is that you are indeed fantasizing.
I believe you take at least three things on faith. 1) That the material world is real, 2) That neither God nor any other entity interfered with the evidence presented in the material world, and 3) That scientists interpret the evidence they have discovered correctly.
I believe most other agree with you on the first item of faith but chances are some disagree with you on either or both of the other items. You will get nowhere with them in an argument if those items cause conflict unless 1) You convert them to your faith on the point causing conflict or 2) they convert your to their faith on that same point.
Observation, even by God, is considered scientific evidence to those who trust it as creditable.
kerwin
Quote First, what you regard as reality can be just a figment of your own self delusion and some extend most likely is.
It could be, but what does that mean for your god?Quote Second, One definition at dictionary.reference.com is that a fantasy is “a supposition based on no solid foundation” You have already admitted you cannot prove what you believe which means your belief has no solid foundation.
Non-sequitur. For someone who likes to boast that he will give a logical argument for his position you are not very good at logical argument.Quote Given those two premises the local conclusion is that you are indeed fantasizing.
Another logical fallacy (is that a syllogistic one? I can't keep up with all the fallacies!)Quote I believe you take at least three things on faith. 1) That the material world is real,
That is not a faith position, it is a working assumption. Should the atomic theory be a faith position, even though we cannot test to see that it applies to every material object?Quote 2) That neither God nor any other entity interfered with the evidence presented in the material world,
That is not a faith position, it is a scientific conclusion that is based on the complete lack of evidence for any such thing as gods. You are just assuming that your position is right and that others are the deluded ones, but you forget it is you telling this story about an apparently Imaginary Sky Friend that you cannot show exists. The burden of proof is with you and you have singly failed that test.Quote and 3) That scientists interpret the evidence they have discovered correctly.
I do not believe that they necessarily must always do that, and in fact the most important assumption inherent in the scientific method is that they will probably get it wrong often. How would that be a faith position?Quote I believe most other agree with you on the first item of faith but chances are some disagree with you on either or both of the other items. You will get nowhere with them in an argument if those items cause conflict unless 1) You convert them to your faith on the point causing conflict or 2) they convert your to their faith on that same point.
Well they are not faith items so whatever your point is, it is irrelevant.Quote Observation, even by God, is considered scientific evidence to those who trust it as creditable.
What god?Stuart
Mystery Giant Skeleton Satellite Images
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmp68Er0ZVc
The video contains satellite images of an object that resembles a giant insect-like skeleton. It rests on a valley floor, and measures 305 feet long in Google Earth. Together with the tail-like remnants, the total length is 1,900 feet. The images are from Google Earth which also appear in Google Maps, and more recently in Terraserver. The ones in Terraserver have better contrast and do not have the overcast clouds, but were of poor quality at the time this video was made.The GPS coordinates of this object are:
28.5634N, 35.2808E
The skeptics continue to call it a mountain, but the location is on a valley floor adjacent to the mountain Jabal Al Lawz in northwest Saudi Arabia.
Jabal Al Lawz is a mountain that some believe is the Biblical Mount Sinai. Biblical references to Leviathan's location may lend further support to that conclusion. The area is off limits to civilians and tourists.
If you want to see the object in 3-D, print the image from Google and the other view from Terraserver. They must be printed to the same scale, which requires effort and precision. Next, place the images side by side, and view them with stereoscopic glasses. You will notice that the black dot on the lower right of the object appears to stick up quite a ways, and appears to be a tree. you will also notice that a hill runs into the 'head' of the object, eliminating most of the shadow.
It has been said that there is a similar formation .62 miles to the south at 28.554502N, 35.281567E, and it is true that in some respects it is similar. But in my opinion, that formation appears to be substantially different because unlike this one it does not cast a shadow, has fuzzy edges that are not so clearly defined, and is a different color. However, like this one it is also on a valley floor, so I leave it to you to decide.
(see my exodus conspiriacy post for more about Mt. Sinai )
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
