B
buffalo
Guest
Source? …
- Status
No, the atheist can study all they want.
They just will never have the answer.
B
benjamin1973
Guest
They can learn a lot about the details, but can never ultimately know the big picture. But they don’t claim knowledge beyond the observable (or at least things inferred from observation).
I really feel the religion vs. science thing is the wrong approach. On the religious side, refusing to study and understand the universe through science is to turn your back on the wondrous things created by God. On the scientific side, there may be a real arrogance-- that even though very little of reality is observable, their knowledge is the only thing that matters to humanity.
I really feel the religion vs. science thing is the wrong approach. On the religious side, refusing to study and understand the universe through science is to turn your back on the wondrous things created by God. On the scientific side, there may be a real arrogance-- that even though very little of reality is observable, their knowledge is the only thing that matters to humanity.
B
buffalo
Guest
Atheists have painted themselves into a corner.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
The answer is 42.benjamin1973:
No, the atheist can study all they want.
They just will never have the answer.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
“Signature in the Cell” by Stephen C. Meyer - a book report.
Some time ago, buffalo challenged me to read this book to see that ID was right and true science. I also challenged him to read a specific pro-evolution book, which he declined to read, giving some excuse about “science has passed it by.” But here is my book report anyway.
In the Prologue the author says “Even if we grant Darwin’s argument, does it really follow that he refuted the design hypothesis?” This is a straw man because Darwin did not attempt the refute the existence of an intelligent designer.
On page 12 we see a pattern that persists throughout the book - using non-biological analogies too much. This is a sure sign that he is really talking philosophy, not science.
Page 14: Mystery: “How did the first living organism get DNA info?” Much of the book focused on the origin of life rather than the origin of species. I don’t recall that Darwin had any theory on how life first began. But scientific theories on the origin of life are much more speculative than theories on evolution. So this subject is an easier target than the harder target of just evolution of species from existing life.
Page 16: more unfortunate analogies.
Page 20: Direct and explicit appeal to intuition plus reliance on public opinion polling, as if that had any relevance in a scientific treatment of evolution.
Page 21: Relies on language - playing games with words, like “code” and “information,” as if the mere use of certain words and analyzing their various meanings would prove anything about the science.
Page 23: More analogies with human coding, complete with examples using the text of the “Declaration of Independence.”
Chapters 3, 4, 5, 6: Spends time reviewing basic concepts of Information Theory and DNA and criticizing the critics of ID. It sounds more like a political speech than a scientific analysis (“Intelligent Design is treated so unfairly!”)
…continued…
Some time ago, buffalo challenged me to read this book to see that ID was right and true science. I also challenged him to read a specific pro-evolution book, which he declined to read, giving some excuse about “science has passed it by.” But here is my book report anyway.
In the Prologue the author says “Even if we grant Darwin’s argument, does it really follow that he refuted the design hypothesis?” This is a straw man because Darwin did not attempt the refute the existence of an intelligent designer.
On page 12 we see a pattern that persists throughout the book - using non-biological analogies too much. This is a sure sign that he is really talking philosophy, not science.
Page 14: Mystery: “How did the first living organism get DNA info?” Much of the book focused on the origin of life rather than the origin of species. I don’t recall that Darwin had any theory on how life first began. But scientific theories on the origin of life are much more speculative than theories on evolution. So this subject is an easier target than the harder target of just evolution of species from existing life.
Page 16: more unfortunate analogies.
Page 20: Direct and explicit appeal to intuition plus reliance on public opinion polling, as if that had any relevance in a scientific treatment of evolution.
Page 21: Relies on language - playing games with words, like “code” and “information,” as if the mere use of certain words and analyzing their various meanings would prove anything about the science.
Page 23: More analogies with human coding, complete with examples using the text of the “Declaration of Independence.”
Chapters 3, 4, 5, 6: Spends time reviewing basic concepts of Information Theory and DNA and criticizing the critics of ID. It sounds more like a political speech than a scientific analysis (“Intelligent Design is treated so unfairly!”)
…continued…
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
…continuing:
Chapter 7 talks about the logical “fallacy” of “Affirming the Consequent.” But the instances where the author claims it is used are not good examples of this fallacy. When A implies B in many unrelated cases, it is a reasonably hypothesis that B might imply A. And the more instances of A->B there are, along with the absence of instances where B is true but A is not, the more likely it is that B->A. This principle of evidence is used in many places in science as supporting evidence (not proof) and is not the fallacy that the author claims it is.
Chapter 18 is even more political, talking about the Dover, Penn. ruling that ID could not be taught as science.
Page 404: The author claims “ID is testable by comparing its explanatory powers to that of competing theories.” The author has a very poor understanding of what testable means, because this is not it.
Page 406: The author confuses a criticism of ID with an argument for evolution, in an effort to show that all arguments for evolution are inadequate.
Chapter 10 has more straw man arguments.
Appendix B throws in criticism of Multiverse Cosmology, so as to tie it to evolution, I guess, so that if something thinks the multiverse sounds silly, they must think that evolution sounds silly.
In short, this book is not present a convincing argument that the mechanism of random variation and natural selection does not lead to the formation of new species.
Chapter 7 talks about the logical “fallacy” of “Affirming the Consequent.” But the instances where the author claims it is used are not good examples of this fallacy. When A implies B in many unrelated cases, it is a reasonably hypothesis that B might imply A. And the more instances of A->B there are, along with the absence of instances where B is true but A is not, the more likely it is that B->A. This principle of evidence is used in many places in science as supporting evidence (not proof) and is not the fallacy that the author claims it is.
Chapter 18 is even more political, talking about the Dover, Penn. ruling that ID could not be taught as science.
Page 404: The author claims “ID is testable by comparing its explanatory powers to that of competing theories.” The author has a very poor understanding of what testable means, because this is not it.
Page 406: The author confuses a criticism of ID with an argument for evolution, in an effort to show that all arguments for evolution are inadequate.
Chapter 10 has more straw man arguments.
Appendix B throws in criticism of Multiverse Cosmology, so as to tie it to evolution, I guess, so that if something thinks the multiverse sounds silly, they must think that evolution sounds silly.
In short, this book is not present a convincing argument that the mechanism of random variation and natural selection does not lead to the formation of new species.
E
edwest211
Guest
This is not religion v. science but evolution v. religion. I study science a great deal, almost daily. Again, most of my friends don’t want to know or could care less. But, this is not about understanding the universe - that’s astronomy - and it’s not about “turn your back on the wondrous things created by God.” Science doesn’t care about God. He doesn’t exist. WHY don’t people admit that? GOD DOES NOT EXIST. PERIOD. Admit it.
Science goes its merry way and tells its 100% pure, materialistic stories. And science is free to do that. The Church looks at what it calls faith and reason, but science CANNOT do that. It can’t.
So all those who know God, know the whole truth. Science does not have the whole truth. This will continue indefinitely. So be it.
Science goes its merry way and tells its 100% pure, materialistic stories. And science is free to do that. The Church looks at what it calls faith and reason, but science CANNOT do that. It can’t.
So all those who know God, know the whole truth. Science does not have the whole truth. This will continue indefinitely. So be it.
Last edited:
B
benjamin1973
Guest
There’s nothing wrong with the theory of evolution. It’s based on observation and inference, and is supported by experimentation.
And you are right. Not only does science not have the whole truth, there are some things which may never be answered by science. For example, why is there consciousness, in any material form, rather than a lack of it.
I’m not really a champion of evolution as a cosmogony explanation. But I do feel that some Catholics avoid learning really good science because it’s not obviously in accordance with Scripture.
And you are right. Not only does science not have the whole truth, there are some things which may never be answered by science. For example, why is there consciousness, in any material form, rather than a lack of it.
I’m not really a champion of evolution as a cosmogony explanation. But I do feel that some Catholics avoid learning really good science because it’s not obviously in accordance with Scripture.
I
IWantGod
Guest
Macro evolution is not a cause. Macro evolution is nothing more than the incremental result of micro changes over millions of years. So micro evolution should be problematic for your point of view because micro evolution is the source of the change.
Last edited:
B
benjamin1973
Guest
I’d argue that not only is evolution not a cause, it’s not even a thing. It’s just a term for the statistical changes that we can see in fossils, and the variation of similar species across different ecosystems.
T
Techno2000
Guest
That’s the problem, where are all the transitional fossils ?
B
benjamin1973
Guest
I’ve heard this question a lot, and it kind of puzzles me. You can google this and see what transitional fossils they think they’ve found. There’s a page on wikipedia that outlines some of them:
en.wikipedia.org
That being said, Darwin himself talked about the fact that in his day, transitional forms were few and far between. He believed it was due to the poor quality of the fossil records at the time.
Transitional fossil - Wikipedia
That being said, Darwin himself talked about the fact that in his day, transitional forms were few and far between. He believed it was due to the poor quality of the fossil records at the time.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
Micro evolution is adaptation which is very complex and information driven.
B
buffalo
Guest
Actually, the experimentation is what is its downfall.
B
buffalo
Guest
This is big news and really important!
Fisher’s theorem, offered as what amounts to a “mathematical proof that Darwinian evolution is inevitable,” now stands as falsified.
After we re-formulated Fisher’s model, allowing for dynamical analysis and permitting the incorporation of newly arising mutations, we subsequently did a series of dynamical simulations involving large but finite populations. We tested the following variables over time: (a) populations without new mutations; (b) populations with mutations that have a symmetrical distribution of fitness effects; and (c) populations with mutations that have a more realistic distribution of mutational effects (with most mutations being deleterious). Our simulations show that; (a) apart from new mutations, the population rapidly moves toward stasis; (b) with symmetrical mutations, the population undergoes rapid and continuous fitness increase; and (c) with a more realistic distribution of mutations the population often undergoes perpetual fitness decline.
Because the premise underlying Fisher’s corollary is now recognized to be entirely wrong, Fisher’s corollary is falsified. Consequently, Fisher’s belief that he had developed a mathematical proof that fitness must always increase is also falsified.
Fisher’s theorem, offered as what amounts to a “mathematical proof that Darwinian evolution is inevitable,” now stands as falsified.
After we re-formulated Fisher’s model, allowing for dynamical analysis and permitting the incorporation of newly arising mutations, we subsequently did a series of dynamical simulations involving large but finite populations. We tested the following variables over time: (a) populations without new mutations; (b) populations with mutations that have a symmetrical distribution of fitness effects; and (c) populations with mutations that have a more realistic distribution of mutational effects (with most mutations being deleterious). Our simulations show that; (a) apart from new mutations, the population rapidly moves toward stasis; (b) with symmetrical mutations, the population undergoes rapid and continuous fitness increase; and (c) with a more realistic distribution of mutations the population often undergoes perpetual fitness decline.
Because the premise underlying Fisher’s corollary is now recognized to be entirely wrong, Fisher’s corollary is falsified. Consequently, Fisher’s belief that he had developed a mathematical proof that fitness must always increase is also falsified.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Yawn! Some theorem I have never heard of and which is not any kind of foundation of evolution was proven to be faulty. So what? It never was very important.
T
Techno2000
Guest
This “random mutation” just happens to know how to mimic a leaf.
T
tstor
Guest
@Techno2000 What makes you believe it was “random”? I would encourage you to read about selection pressure. I have provided a pretty good and brief excerpt from a biology textbook:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22508/
Last edited:
A
Aloysium
Guest
This thread moves very fast. Going back to the last post where I left off, 100 posts ago:
When we speak of a human body, in addition to its being an “infinitely” complex organization of electrochemical reactions, we can view it as information processing. The information is the structure of DNA, RNA and proteins. It is the shape of these molecules that makes it what it is and do what it does, within the soul that is the wholeness, continuity, being-ness of the living organism. The soul animates matter, defining a living individual being capable of interaction with its environment. We perceive, feel, think and act within a physical universe where matter, external and as the neurological network of our senses and brain, as the form of the spirit results in experiences like this moment.
We inherit information from our parents in the form of two haploid germ cells, passed down from Adam, who as mankind, is reunited at conception, created by God as the person. The first person would have been perfect spiritually and physically; when we sinned, in him, we fell and at that point our genetics started messing up. Fortunately however, there was sufficient genetic potential and self-correction within the initial genetic coding to allow for us to sustain many millennia of hits. While polygeny is generally accepted as an important part of the standard theory of evolution, it is an appearance resulting from a misapplication of statistics, assumptions based on our fallen world, and the inability of science to determine who was human.
We come from God, who is Existence itself, Triune and One. Beginning with the first man, it is happening in each moment. Other considerations as interesting as they may be, are irrelevant. God did this any way He wanted and He will guide us to what is true and important for us to know for our salvation.
Our body develops from previous living forms. We don’t ingest chunks of carbon to combine with hydrogen, oxygen nitrogen and other elements. We eat vegetables and meat, digesting proteins into amino acids, fats down to fatty acids and glycerol, and carbohydrates into simple sugars. Along with vitamins and minerals, these absorbed nutrients are metabolized into the formation of our bodies - our anatomy and physiology. Of the original fertilized cell, which we were at our origins and whose matter was derived from both parents, there is probably nothing left. It would make poetic sense to say that there are one or two original molecules in each and every cell. In other words, everything we are bodily is from a former living organism.
When we speak of a human body, in addition to its being an “infinitely” complex organization of electrochemical reactions, we can view it as information processing. The information is the structure of DNA, RNA and proteins. It is the shape of these molecules that makes it what it is and do what it does, within the soul that is the wholeness, continuity, being-ness of the living organism. The soul animates matter, defining a living individual being capable of interaction with its environment. We perceive, feel, think and act within a physical universe where matter, external and as the neurological network of our senses and brain, as the form of the spirit results in experiences like this moment.
We inherit information from our parents in the form of two haploid germ cells, passed down from Adam, who as mankind, is reunited at conception, created by God as the person. The first person would have been perfect spiritually and physically; when we sinned, in him, we fell and at that point our genetics started messing up. Fortunately however, there was sufficient genetic potential and self-correction within the initial genetic coding to allow for us to sustain many millennia of hits. While polygeny is generally accepted as an important part of the standard theory of evolution, it is an appearance resulting from a misapplication of statistics, assumptions based on our fallen world, and the inability of science to determine who was human.
We come from God, who is Existence itself, Triune and One. Beginning with the first man, it is happening in each moment. Other considerations as interesting as they may be, are irrelevant. God did this any way He wanted and He will guide us to what is true and important for us to know for our salvation.
Last edited:
- Status