Is evolution a fact?

[Steve40]

Is it really? I don’t have to admit any such thing because I have no idea what you are talking about. Just how is “irreducible complexity” used in software design and precisely how is that relevant to Behe’s (now discredited) arguments about irreducible complexity in biochemical pathways?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

The concept of irreducible complexity is used in software design whenever you understand algorithms at the base functional level and how the functions work together, in order to simplify the algorithm. Many programmers call it refactoring. The idea is to simplify the structure in such a way that it is easier to understand and easier to maintain. Now a days, people time, costs more than computer time or memory space. Object oriented design, if done correctly also often reduces to the least complexity i.e. irreducible complexity.

Irreducible complexity in Engineering translates into biochemical pathways in that it is a logical evaluation of functionality and how functions work together. The methods of logic involved in both engineering and in the evaluation of the biochemical functions are essential the same. It doesn’t mater if the mechanism is digital or biochemical because it is just looking at base functions with logic. If two biochemical functions need each other to function and yet appose each other in a regulating fashion you have logically determined irreducible complexity. It is a logical and scientific assumption that both functions must have always existed together.

 

[wildleafblower]

Perhaps they are responding to centuries of religious academics dragging in some irrelevant excuse to support the idea of the existence and goodness of a Deity.

It’s time that believers accepted that today those who are most familiar with the natural world overwhelmingly use the evidence they find there to reject theism, which conclusion is no more or less philosophically acceptable than the believers’ long-standing reliance on the teleological argument. The majority of science-based academics use their knowledge of the natural world to reject the existence of a personal God based on the evidence they are intimately familiar with; a significant minority of those conscientiously conclude that religious belief is harmful to humanity and society and express that opinion publicly and forcefully. What on earth can be wrong with that?
[snip]
Alec
evolutionpages.com/Schoenborn_critique.htm

What on earth can be wrong? Nothing. “We” don’t need a teleological argument.:hug3: Dear Alec, Dr. Alec MacAndrew (hecd2), YOU gave me permission long ago via an email to believe in God for you. And, I DO and always will. I keep my promises. I Love Jesus and trust him. I have a supernatural faith in God to help by sending me the Holy Spirit to guide me. Here is a gentle reminder - please review my msg. 255 and 258 on this topic and be sure to read my message 209 on the Topic: The CC on Evolution: A Different Thread, I Hopeforums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2686246#post2686246
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2686246#post2686246

 

[cpayne]

We do not need a teleological argument. But we are so glad to have one. Also cosmological, ontological, and some other ogicals. God bless, good night, sleep tight, don’t let the bedbugs bite.

 

[vern_humphrey]

We do not need a teleological argument. But we are so glad to have one. Also cosmological, ontological, and some other ogicals. God bless, good night, sleep tight, don’t let the bedbugs bite.

Proctological?

 

[cpayne]

Many people think of that argument as fundamentally unsound.

 

[scottm]

Whoa there – that was a cut-and-paste from www.catholic.com

 

[scottm]

One of my constant arguments to fundamentalists is how can you accept science for what it provides your personal life then reject it on issues that you decides conflicts with your interpretation of what the bible is supposed to mean. Cars, electricity, internet, TV, telephones, and the latest in medical research are fine, but geology and biology, astronomy, astrophysics, paleontology, anthropology, are all demonized as perveyors of known lies. And then they can split again and say well biology is fine to treat my cancer but that part where you study how life changes over time…you’re deliberately lying to me for perverse reasons I’m unable to articulate.

I find it utterly mindboggling how one brain can run into two opposing modes. I’d be interested to see some studies on mental health between fundies and whatever everyone else is.

The fundies at issue might be recognizing that science is built upon philosophy, and that the philosophy underlying science today is opposed to God. Technology, on the other hand, does not have an underlying philosophy. Explanations of what Man is and where he came from are given by science; hence, there is an conflict. Our cars and TVs and whatnot, however, come to us through technology, so there is no conflict.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The fundies at issue might be recognizing that science is built upon philosophy, and that the philosophy underlying science today is opposed to God. Technology, on the other hand, does not have an underlying philosophy. Explanations of what Man is and where he came from are given by science; hence, there is an conflict. Our cars and TVs and whatnot, however, come to us through technology, so there is no conflict.

Actually, technology is the application or expression of science. Our cars could not be built without a thorough understanding of physics, chemistry, metalurgy and so on.

 

[Steve40]

One of my constant arguments to fundamentalists is how can you accept science for what it provides your personal life then reject it on issues that you decides conflicts with your interpretation of what the bible is supposed to mean. Cars, electricity, internet, TV, telephones, and the latest in medical research are fine, but geology and biology, astronomy, astrophysics, paleontology, anthropology, are all demonized as perveyors of known lies. And then they can split again and say well biology is fine to treat my cancer but that part where you study how life changes over time…you’re deliberately lying to me for perverse reasons I’m unable to articulate.

I find it utterly mindboggling how one brain can run into two opposing modes. I’d be interested to see some studies on mental health between fundies and whatever everyone else is.

The more logical/mathimatical conclusion is that life did not evolve. The statistics are enormous. In fact I would say it takes more faith to believe in evolution than Special Creation. It is precisely because I am interested in the engineering of technology that I had to abandon the false belief in evolution. It’s just unbelievable from mathimatics, and engineering point of view.

 

[wildleafblower]

We do not need a teleological argument. But we are so glad to have one. Also cosmological, ontological, and some other ogicals.
wildleafblower;2879074:

What on earth can be wrong? Nothing. “We” don’t need a teleological argument.:hug3: Dear Alec, Dr. Alec MacAndrew (hecd2), YOU gave me permission long ago via an email to believe in God for you. And, I DO and always will. I keep my promises. I Love Jesus and trust him. I have a supernatural faith in God to help by sending me the Holy Spirit to guide me. Here is a gentle reminder - please review my msg. 255 and 258 on this topic and be sure to read my message 209 on the Topic: The CC on Evolution: A Different Thread, I Hope

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2686246#post2686246
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2686246#post2686246

Perhaps they are responding to centuries of religious academics dragging in some irrelevant excuse to support the idea of the existence and goodness of a Deity.

It’s time that believers accepted that today those who are most familiar with the natural world overwhelmingly use the evidence they find there to reject theism, which conclusion is no more or less philosophically acceptable than the believers’ long-standing reliance on the teleological argument. The majority of science-based academics use their knowledge of the natural world to reject the existence of a personal God based on the evidence they are intimately familiar with; a significant minority of those conscientiously conclude that religious belief is harmful to humanity and society and express that opinion publicly and forcefully. What on earth can be wrong with that?
[snip]
Alec

cpayne, you apparently are stuck in limbo without a response to Alec’s message 295 and 296. You are fundamentally unsounded, so to speak.

Actually, technology is the application or expression of science. Our cars could not be built without a thorough understanding of physics, chemistry, metalurgy and so on.

Hello Vern Yep, you are right on the money. And, by golly I I love fast cars and motorcycles and jets. Do you know who financed that Telsa hotrod (ref.ms. 294)? Mr. x-Pay Pal physicist who is also into aerodynamics. Know who? Ahhh, think Space and CARS. The two are a wonderful couple.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

The fundies at issue might be recognizing that science is built upon philosophy, and that the philosophy underlying science today is opposed to God. Technology, on the other hand, does not have an underlying philosophy. Explanations of what Man is and where he came from are given by science; hence, there is an conflict. Our cars and TVs and whatnot, however, come to us through technology, so there is no conflict.

LOL…You claim to be an engineer and you making a statement like that? Go read again what technology is…good grief.

The more logical/mathimatical conclusion is that life did not evolve. The statistics are enormous. In fact I would say it takes more faith to believe in evolution than Special Creation. It is precisely because I am interested in the engineering of technology that I had to abandon the false belief in evolution. It’s just unbelievable from mathimatics, and engineering point of view.

you’ve been pushing your weird engineering arguments and have been rather soundly thrashed by those who have the expertise to see through your “mathimatical” conclusions. What is the Engineering of technology? You abandoned evolution because you place your faith in the wrong things, and feel threatened. Most of us don’t.

Calling evolution false won’t get you anywhere. You have NO scientific model that anyone can use to predict, or explain a thing. Give it up. Explain the conspiracy for me? No one has yet, they always ignore that and change the subject.

 

[freesoulhope]

The more logical/mathimatical conclusion is that life did not evolve. The statistics are enormous. In fact I would say it takes more faith to believe in evolution than Special Creation. It is precisely because I am interested in the engineering of technology that I had to abandon the false belief in evolution. It’s just unbelievable from mathimatics, and engineering point of view.

I would say that Evolution is imposible with out God. But i think it is likley that it did happen. If you ignore the “Statistics” and stop divorcing God from evolution, then we will see that evolution is a good explanation for what we see in nature. Even Behe believes in evolution. What he doesn’t believe, however, is that it was accident.

 

[wildleafblower]

It is precisely because I am interested in the engineering of technology that I had to abandon the false belief in evolution. .

Steve40, yes, you are an advocate of the Intelligent Design movement that hasn’t yeilded any scientifically peer-reviewed acceptance. Right?

You [Steve40] abandoned evolution because you place your faith in the wrong things, and feel threatened.

SpiritMeadow, I don’t think Steve40 feels threatened in any way, shape, or form otherwise he wouldn’t be constinuously posting the same stuff over and over again. Some people might call it brainwashing while others call it meme. I don’t agree with either method.

 

[Ahimsa]

Yes, evolution is a fact.

However, you need not believe in it.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Yes, evolution is a fact.

However, you need not believe in it.

I live in Stone County, Arkansas – and that’s not false advertising.

I have a nice collection of fossils I’ve picked up on my farm. Clearly these are the remains of animals and plants that once lived on the farm. But when I go looking for living examples of those plants and animals, I can’t find them! (With a few exceptions, of course.)

And when I look for fossils of the living plants and animals, I can’t find them!!

What’s going on here?

If I dig deeper, I notice that the fossils in one layer are different from the layers above and below it.

What the heck?

It looks like the life forms on my farm have “turned over” many times – with one set of plants and animals being replaced by a different set. And this happened over and over!!

It’s got to be some kind of a plot!

 

[cpayne]

cpayne, you apparently are stuck in limbo without a response to Alec’s message 295 and 296. You are fundamentally unsounded, so to speak.

Well, I might agree with the second part. But on the first, I thought we more or less agreed to drop the limbo discussion and the discussion on whether or not Aquinas’s fifth proof is properly called a design argument.

At any rate, even if we didn’t agree to drop it, I’m dropping it. (A unilateral executive decision. )

 

[cpayne]

Reading back over things, I realize now we did not drop the limbo discussion. Well, previous post still applies.

 

[edwest2]

Thank you for your concern, and grudging acceptance that I am not “totally limited” which is hugely charitable, but I am an MBTI “thinker” so appeals to emotion don’t cut much ice with me.

Faith is believing things without evidence - faith is a deliberate suppression of our critical faculties - faith is the acceptance of unwarranted beliefs. It’s time we gave it up and stopped treating it as a virtue.

We were talking about the fact that science is the only reliable way to discover knowledge about the natural world, that it needs no belief in supernatural phenomena or gods of any kind to do its job, and that therefore it is, as I claimed, sufficient unto itself.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

To my fellow Catholics -

“It’s time we gave it up…”

This thread is about the abolition of what you believe.

Evolution is not a fact.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Steve40]

LOL…You claim to be an engineer and you making a statement like that? Go read again what technology is…good grief.

you’ve been pushing your weird engineering arguments and have been rather soundly thrashed by those who have the expertise to see through your “mathimatical” conclusions. What is the Engineering of technology? You abandoned evolution because you place your faith in the wrong things, and feel threatened. Most of us don’t.

Calling evolution false won’t get you anywhere. You have NO scientific model that anyone can use to predict, or explain a thing. Give it up. Explain the conspiracy for me? No one has yet, they always ignore that and change the subject.

Prove evolution to me. Show me an experiment that proves it. Show me any evidence of a transitional form. You don’t know what you are talking about. You trust in others to have evidence that you have never verified. The evidence does not exist. Believe your rediculous theory. I leave you to it.

 

[Steve40]

Steve40, yes, you are an advocate of the Intelligent Design movement that hasn’t yeilded any scientifically peer-reviewed acceptance. Right?

SpiritMeadow, I don’t think Steve40 feels threatened in any way, shape, or form otherwise he wouldn’t be constinuously posting the same stuff over and over again. Some people might call it brainwashing while others call it meme. I don’t agree with either method.

I see the logic in irreducible complexity. This is where the rubber meets the road. There is no driver for adaptation when you see complex functions that can only work together but are independent. The logical conclusion given the evolutionary model is that the functions must have always existed together. You don’t have to believe the functions were designed you only have to understand that there is no explainable mechanism on how they cam about. A theory without a valid mechanism is a religion.