Recovery Board
: RfM
Recovery from Mormonism (RfM) discussion forum.
I have rationally reconciled microevolution, macroevolution, reincarnation, and the Bible by stepping out of the box. I believe all four are true. My assumptions have to do with genetics, and there is no mutations, and there is no "missing links". What are my rational assumptions? I cannot answer tonight, but I am going to bed, but I will look tomorrow. The answer must fit with the *evidence* we do have of the age of the earth and not guessing the age just because science says evolution must be true, therefore, the earth is 4.5 billions of years old. See a different and very simple belief says it doesn't have to be that old. We can use time dating assumptions and valid methods without the irrational leaps of faith. The earth is far older than 6,000 years. But is it 4.5 billions of years old? How are the current time assumptions built with no evidence? Just based on the evidence, what do we conclude? We live in boxes of paradigms and therefore twist the evidence. We don't have to do that.
Here's a hint: the Bible, the work that most people cite as evidence against evolution, is itself a product of literary evolution.
"Rational assumptions". Now that's funny.
The estimate of the age of the earth was not "built with no evidence". It is surprisingly precise, and derived from quite a lot of evidence. The fact that you are unaware of that evidence, or worse, willfully ignorant of it, calls your rational analysis into question.
But sure, go ahead. I await further light and knowledge.
The estimate of the age of the earth was not "built with no evidence". It is surprisingly precise, and derived from quite a lot of evidence. The fact that you are unaware of that evidence, or worse, willfully ignorant of it, calls your rational analysis into question.
But sure, go ahead. I await further light and knowledge.
You have corrected my thinking on the surface and have a valid point about "reasonable assumptions". The idea is from the scientific processes that isolates a postulate making an assumption, which is a belief or theory, and is not rational. Therefore, my statement can be very misunderstood and appear false. Thank you.7
However, I am saying the four assumptions all integrate together as a total system of ideas that are rational. There is a difference from studying the tree and the forest. My assumptions make the forest reasonable. The four assumptions must make rational sense as well as its isolated parts of beliefs, which your comment astutely addresses. What you write makes sense for the parts, but not for the whole, to me. I stepped out of the box to created ideas that creates four assumptions that fit together rationally to make sense. If I am wrong, let's discuss it. I am wrong, I need the correction.
This is the scientific process applied to ideas and not to the physical world. So I need correction if the ideas are irrational in any way, and I need to change the post if I am wrong. This is how we work together as a team. Thank you.
However, I am saying the four assumptions all integrate together as a total system of ideas that are rational. There is a difference from studying the tree and the forest. My assumptions make the forest reasonable. The four assumptions must make rational sense as well as its isolated parts of beliefs, which your comment astutely addresses. What you write makes sense for the parts, but not for the whole, to me. I stepped out of the box to created ideas that creates four assumptions that fit together rationally to make sense. If I am wrong, let's discuss it. I am wrong, I need the correction.
This is the scientific process applied to ideas and not to the physical world. So I need correction if the ideas are irrational in any way, and I need to change the post if I am wrong. This is how we work together as a team. Thank you.
I got tired of these kinds of arguments after years of study. I am 60 years old and have toyed with ideas all of my life. I stepped out of the box because the discussions never end. I wanted closure on the ideas. I made a few assumptions at the very top that work with the forest, but have nothing to do with the trees. What are my assumptions?
I have never found a board with minds so focused on reason. so I decided to post the question, which four assumptions of I believe are true are never addressed anywhere on the planet. My ideas are rational, but they don't fit anywhere on the planet. But if you derive the same quest for true ideas based on reason because the logic can't prove them false, then we can learn together and maybe someone in here will correct me. It does NOT mean the assumptions are true. But it means I believe they are true because they are the most rational ideas on the planet that I know of, but after 60 years of study, I have never gone publicly with the ideas.
Jerry is a good example. Is my post in error because I claimed my assumptions are reasonable? I need to know why. If no one can logically disprove the idea, then I will assume it is true unless someone proves the idea is false. It is moving the scientific method to ideas and not just physical facts. I am interested in the integrated ideas that fit the physical facts and reason for the unknown. The thought premise is God is the most rational thought creator in the universe, and if true, the irrational interpretations of the Bible in all religions must not be from Him/Her. What are my assumption to reconcile all of these major ideas percolating at the top on the planet? If you think outside of the box of scientists and religions, and follow the processes of the mind, you too can figure out my assumptions with your own mind by using reason.
I have never found a board with minds so focused on reason. so I decided to post the question, which four assumptions of I believe are true are never addressed anywhere on the planet. My ideas are rational, but they don't fit anywhere on the planet. But if you derive the same quest for true ideas based on reason because the logic can't prove them false, then we can learn together and maybe someone in here will correct me. It does NOT mean the assumptions are true. But it means I believe they are true because they are the most rational ideas on the planet that I know of, but after 60 years of study, I have never gone publicly with the ideas.
Jerry is a good example. Is my post in error because I claimed my assumptions are reasonable? I need to know why. If no one can logically disprove the idea, then I will assume it is true unless someone proves the idea is false. It is moving the scientific method to ideas and not just physical facts. I am interested in the integrated ideas that fit the physical facts and reason for the unknown. The thought premise is God is the most rational thought creator in the universe, and if true, the irrational interpretations of the Bible in all religions must not be from Him/Her. What are my assumption to reconcile all of these major ideas percolating at the top on the planet? If you think outside of the box of scientists and religions, and follow the processes of the mind, you too can figure out my assumptions with your own mind by using reason.
You're using definitions of both "reason" and "rational" that aren't the normal definitions. That's part of the problem.
Another problem is assuming that if "logic" can't prove some belief of yours wrong, it must be true. First, many of the beliefs you've stated can be shown to be logically fallacious. Second, that's the complete opposite of the normal standard: claims (or beliefs or ideas) are not considered true until they can be shown by evidence or logic to BE true. It's not "true unless proven false," it's "unknown true or false until proven true or false."
Since you're using a different language, different definitions, and backwards logic, it's no wonder difficulties in communication arise.
Some of us, like BoJ, have tried to point out why that's a problem. Seems like the message isn't getting across.
Another problem is assuming that if "logic" can't prove some belief of yours wrong, it must be true. First, many of the beliefs you've stated can be shown to be logically fallacious. Second, that's the complete opposite of the normal standard: claims (or beliefs or ideas) are not considered true until they can be shown by evidence or logic to BE true. It's not "true unless proven false," it's "unknown true or false until proven true or false."
Since you're using a different language, different definitions, and backwards logic, it's no wonder difficulties in communication arise.
Some of us, like BoJ, have tried to point out why that's a problem. Seems like the message isn't getting across.
I am applying the scientific method to ideas. The scientific method says we can't prove any idea is true. If we run the test, and it can't be proven false, we assume it is true. Then someone 200 years later with new theory proves the old theory false, so we change the idea, not our bodies. Unfortunately, people in power twist the scientific method on purpose and the people at the bottom believe science is a "fact" that proves everything is true.
Facts are facts and can't be changed unless there is fraud.
But theories and ideas change all the time based on facts that prove the idea is false. I moved the scientific theory to the unknown, and if a theory about God is irrational based on the evidence or a stupid idea, then it is false. But if the idea or theory cannot be proven false by true facts and not by fraud to gain power, then it is assumed to be true. All truth is logical. Truth is reason, and that is my premise based on the scientific processes. True ideas cannot be proven true. They can only be proven false.
Therefore, the LDS process of praying to know the truth is not in the Bible. They twist the word wisdom to mean the truth. Wisdom come by mortal experience, not prayer. If we ask God for wisdom, He will give us a tom of experience not revelation of the truth.
Facts are facts and can't be changed unless there is fraud.
But theories and ideas change all the time based on facts that prove the idea is false. I moved the scientific theory to the unknown, and if a theory about God is irrational based on the evidence or a stupid idea, then it is false. But if the idea or theory cannot be proven false by true facts and not by fraud to gain power, then it is assumed to be true. All truth is logical. Truth is reason, and that is my premise based on the scientific processes. True ideas cannot be proven true. They can only be proven false.
Therefore, the LDS process of praying to know the truth is not in the Bible. They twist the word wisdom to mean the truth. Wisdom come by mortal experience, not prayer. If we ask God for wisdom, He will give us a tom of experience not revelation of the truth.
Why should God be a rational being? Why should our idea of God be any closer to reality than the ideas of termites or dandelions? Maybe God is as far from rational as you can get. What the Eastern mystics call “emptiness”.
The LDS method of divining truth comes through the alchemists and folklore. That doesn’t mean it’s wrong. It just doesn’t work for objective truth, because the experience of being is entirely subjective. The problem occurs when a doofus like Joseph fails to see the distinction or abuses it to take advantage of people.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/14/2018 06:05PM by babyloncansuckit.
The LDS method of divining truth comes through the alchemists and folklore. That doesn’t mean it’s wrong. It just doesn’t work for objective truth, because the experience of being is entirely subjective. The problem occurs when a doofus like Joseph fails to see the distinction or abuses it to take advantage of people.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/14/2018 06:05PM by babyloncansuckit.
God being reasonable as a foundational assumption I want to believe. The assumption reconciles evolution, reincarnation, and the Bible. I could not reconcile all the confusion until I changed the assumptions.
If you can prove the ideas are irrational, then I have to change. I do not want to be changing my views based on some new fact from the top from leadership of the planet who lie to us to gain money, power, control, and sex, and more sex. I want to be stable in my main assumptions that no longer change like they used to. I may have to modify my assumptions a bit if someone here proves the ideas are irrational and false. But over many year my main assumptions have changed less and less. I have thousands of ideas that contradict all theologians and all religions. I believe in Reason. That works for me.
If you can prove the ideas are irrational, then I have to change. I do not want to be changing my views based on some new fact from the top from leadership of the planet who lie to us to gain money, power, control, and sex, and more sex. I want to be stable in my main assumptions that no longer change like they used to. I may have to modify my assumptions a bit if someone here proves the ideas are irrational and false. But over many year my main assumptions have changed less and less. I have thousands of ideas that contradict all theologians and all religions. I believe in Reason. That works for me.
That you want to believe somethimg is a terrible basis to start from. it leads to all kinds of cognitive bias and is a bias in its own right as well. What you want has no bearing on its truth independently.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/14/2018 07:43PM by dogblogger.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/14/2018 07:43PM by dogblogger.
We can not stop belief in something any more than we can stop the earth from turning, Religions that put faith before reason do not understand belief. Reason comes first and God made us with automatic closed-minds when we believe something is true, so we don't believe in stupid ideas based on emotions. Emotions are fine based on wants, like choosing between strawberry and vanilla ice cream. Truth is not part of the belief.
Anon the Great Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We can not stop belief in something any more than
> we can stop the earth from turning, Religions that
> put faith before reason do not understand belief.
> Reason comes first and God made us with automatic
> closed-minds when we believe something is true, so
> we don't believe in stupid ideas based on
> emotions. Emotions are fine based on wants, like
> choosing between strawberry and vanilla ice cream.
> Truth is not part of the belief.
There is no basis for any of that statement. So let's answer the basic question.
How do you know anything. Anything at all.
Your statment above declares reason exists, God exists, faith, emotion, minds and more. How do you know any of that?
What are the fewest assumptions and how does that lead to knowledge?
-------------------------------------------------------
> We can not stop belief in something any more than
> we can stop the earth from turning, Religions that
> put faith before reason do not understand belief.
> Reason comes first and God made us with automatic
> closed-minds when we believe something is true, so
> we don't believe in stupid ideas based on
> emotions. Emotions are fine based on wants, like
> choosing between strawberry and vanilla ice cream.
> Truth is not part of the belief.
There is no basis for any of that statement. So let's answer the basic question.
How do you know anything. Anything at all.
Your statment above declares reason exists, God exists, faith, emotion, minds and more. How do you know any of that?
What are the fewest assumptions and how does that lead to knowledge?
My conclusions of the mind is by inner observation. Everyone can valid what I write is true how the mind works. You don't need a PhD or schooling to valid it. Look inside and watch how the mind works.
So we apply the scientific method on the outside by observation. Likewise, we can use the scientific method on the inside to apply it to ideas using reason and irrationality to keep or throw away bad assumptions and bad ideas. The mind is rational. We believe an idea first, and then the mind automatically kicks in to defend our beliefs with valid logic. The system of the of rational mind breaks apart when we believe lies, causing emotional trauma. People will do anything to change their deeds and behavior rather than their ideas.
So we apply the scientific method on the outside by observation. Likewise, we can use the scientific method on the inside to apply it to ideas using reason and irrationality to keep or throw away bad assumptions and bad ideas. The mind is rational. We believe an idea first, and then the mind automatically kicks in to defend our beliefs with valid logic. The system of the of rational mind breaks apart when we believe lies, causing emotional trauma. People will do anything to change their deeds and behavior rather than their ideas.
I ran into the problem of time from a totally different perspective. At 1% growth rate, the earth becomes incompatible in 1,000 years. But if I start with 8 people at 0.5% compounded growth rate, then the population of earth equals the population of earth before the industrial revolution.
They did not have Excel worksheets in mass until 1988, so those at the bottom could not do the math. Anyone can play with the rates and estimate the population of earth. Therefore, I spent two weeks of number crunching and made a conclusion based on math facts. The population of man dies on the planet about 5,000 years or the Biblical story is true about Noah's ark. The age of the earth is about 200,000 years old not 6,000 because of all the ET evidence we have found, although 95% of the ET ideasin public are false because they are irrational.
The earth may be 500,000 or a million years old, but it is not 4.5 billions years old. The ETs controlled the population with half-true ideas of reincarnation, so they kept the population to around about 500,000. People are suggesting the same ideas today to control population growth, but they don't think about the history of the earth population and growth rates. The ideas of population growth rate is only about the future and not the past.
Now you are reasoning with me. Now you are getting closer to my assumptions based on the facts I believe in. Anyone can run the population growth rates. Math doesn't lie. Maybe your assumptions will be better than mine. I don't know. I have never shared the ideas publicly.
The current ideas on earth don't work unless someone or something was controlling the population growth. The Bible doesn't fit because no one is reading Genesis 1 with the right assumptions. What are they?
How do I fit microevolution and macroevolution into the Bible with the max assumption of the age of the earth is only a million years old, but is most likely only 200,000 years old? What assumptions did I make to resolve the endless debating in my mind? I stepped out of the worn-out assumptions and made new ones. Can you figure out my assumption?
They did not have Excel worksheets in mass until 1988, so those at the bottom could not do the math. Anyone can play with the rates and estimate the population of earth. Therefore, I spent two weeks of number crunching and made a conclusion based on math facts. The population of man dies on the planet about 5,000 years or the Biblical story is true about Noah's ark. The age of the earth is about 200,000 years old not 6,000 because of all the ET evidence we have found, although 95% of the ET ideasin public are false because they are irrational.
The earth may be 500,000 or a million years old, but it is not 4.5 billions years old. The ETs controlled the population with half-true ideas of reincarnation, so they kept the population to around about 500,000. People are suggesting the same ideas today to control population growth, but they don't think about the history of the earth population and growth rates. The ideas of population growth rate is only about the future and not the past.
Now you are reasoning with me. Now you are getting closer to my assumptions based on the facts I believe in. Anyone can run the population growth rates. Math doesn't lie. Maybe your assumptions will be better than mine. I don't know. I have never shared the ideas publicly.
The current ideas on earth don't work unless someone or something was controlling the population growth. The Bible doesn't fit because no one is reading Genesis 1 with the right assumptions. What are they?
How do I fit microevolution and macroevolution into the Bible with the max assumption of the age of the earth is only a million years old, but is most likely only 200,000 years old? What assumptions did I make to resolve the endless debating in my mind? I stepped out of the worn-out assumptions and made new ones. Can you figure out my assumption?
You are trying to squeeze a philosophical debate into a logistical debate.
It ain't flying. Plus you are creating data to suit your argument instead of using existing data.
It ain't flying. Plus you are creating data to suit your argument instead of using existing data.
Did you read my post about the population growth rates on earth? After two weeks of looking the math, I had to change my assumptions based on facts.
Please explain more about Logistics and Philosophy. I stated I moved the scientific method from the physical to the mental. No other philosopher does this except me. No logistician does this except me. I told everyone I stepped out of the boxes. I consider myself mentally free. We only use about 5% or 10% of our brains because we fill them with irrational ideas from the establishment, especially from theologians and religions, and clog them up. If 90% of our brains are running on illogical ideas that are half-true twisted light, we are only going to us 10% of our brains.
I've read a little of the writings of Plato and Aristotle, but I throw out any ideas they taught that are irrational. And there is a lot of them. So I don't believe an idea just because a famous person said it. I use reason and my own mind to believe any idea, and I don't care who said it.
Please explain more about Logistics and Philosophy. I stated I moved the scientific method from the physical to the mental. No other philosopher does this except me. No logistician does this except me. I told everyone I stepped out of the boxes. I consider myself mentally free. We only use about 5% or 10% of our brains because we fill them with irrational ideas from the establishment, especially from theologians and religions, and clog them up. If 90% of our brains are running on illogical ideas that are half-true twisted light, we are only going to us 10% of our brains.
I've read a little of the writings of Plato and Aristotle, but I throw out any ideas they taught that are irrational. And there is a lot of them. So I don't believe an idea just because a famous person said it. I use reason and my own mind to believe any idea, and I don't care who said it.
Population models are hyperbolic. Math doesn’t lie, but models do. For every working model, there are lots of broken ones. If you weigh that against the science that has found 100,000 year old humans and dug up ice cores that are 2.7 million years old, which is more believable?
I think you’re spreading yourself too thin. You’re incredibly open. Nobody here can meet you on your terms, so how about doing something constructive? It’s obvious you’re willing to believe anything. Let’s leverage that. Choose to believe what serves you. Didn’t Mormonism demonstrate that the facts have no bearing on belief?
According to the observations of yogis, you consist of body, mind, emotion, and the energy that ties these together. The evidence is in the technologies. Most teks are old school, but the new school ones are more objective. So I dunno, how interested in the reality beyond trendy rationalism are you?
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/14/2018 07:17PM by babyloncansuckit.
I think you’re spreading yourself too thin. You’re incredibly open. Nobody here can meet you on your terms, so how about doing something constructive? It’s obvious you’re willing to believe anything. Let’s leverage that. Choose to believe what serves you. Didn’t Mormonism demonstrate that the facts have no bearing on belief?
According to the observations of yogis, you consist of body, mind, emotion, and the energy that ties these together. The evidence is in the technologies. Most teks are old school, but the new school ones are more objective. So I dunno, how interested in the reality beyond trendy rationalism are you?
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/14/2018 07:17PM by babyloncansuckit.
I have studies the various methods the scientist use to date items of history. They assume the decay of isotopes are consistent year after year and then make projections to fit the assumptions they have made. No one can verify if the assumptions are true.
No I don't believe anything, just because of the evidence they have found of buried pyramids. I said 95% of the ES ideas are fraudulent scamming to waste our time. Maybe it is a 98% fraud to control us. I don't believe the irrational interpretation of the facts.
I am not open-minded. I am very closed-minded, and we are all created that way. When was the last time you went to an open-minded person and said something that contracted their hidden assumptions? People who claim they are open-minded are the most closed-minded people on the planet. I'm saying every one is closed-minded based on what they believe is true, whatever it is. Science calls this "human bias" without explaining the dynamics of the mind.
Every person is very intelligent, but they believe they are stupid, so their mind does not work properly to remove the stupid ideas they believe. They are mentally blind to reason. People are not smart or stupid, but they believe smart ideas or stupid ideas that run the computers of their minds.
No I don't believe anything, just because of the evidence they have found of buried pyramids. I said 95% of the ES ideas are fraudulent scamming to waste our time. Maybe it is a 98% fraud to control us. I don't believe the irrational interpretation of the facts.
I am not open-minded. I am very closed-minded, and we are all created that way. When was the last time you went to an open-minded person and said something that contracted their hidden assumptions? People who claim they are open-minded are the most closed-minded people on the planet. I'm saying every one is closed-minded based on what they believe is true, whatever it is. Science calls this "human bias" without explaining the dynamics of the mind.
Every person is very intelligent, but they believe they are stupid, so their mind does not work properly to remove the stupid ideas they believe. They are mentally blind to reason. People are not smart or stupid, but they believe smart ideas or stupid ideas that run the computers of their minds.
Anon the Great Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have studies the various methods the scientist
> use to date items of history. They assume the
> decay of isotopes are consistent year after year
> and then make projections to fit the assumptions
> they have made. No one can verify if the
> assumptions are true.
Nonsense. If half-lives are not constant, the universe looks radically different than it does. For the earth to be younger on the order you calculate, the radioactive decay rate and the resultant heat would still leave the earth molten for example. If it's slower, then there are numerous other problems about the ratio of elements.
We can confirm the decay rate of C14 from dendrochronogy, confirmed against speleothems and ice cores beyond the useful range of dating. While there are ways to tweak with decay rates, they involve exceptional sitautions that would be evident as well.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have studies the various methods the scientist
> use to date items of history. They assume the
> decay of isotopes are consistent year after year
> and then make projections to fit the assumptions
> they have made. No one can verify if the
> assumptions are true.
Nonsense. If half-lives are not constant, the universe looks radically different than it does. For the earth to be younger on the order you calculate, the radioactive decay rate and the resultant heat would still leave the earth molten for example. If it's slower, then there are numerous other problems about the ratio of elements.
We can confirm the decay rate of C14 from dendrochronogy, confirmed against speleothems and ice cores beyond the useful range of dating. While there are ways to tweak with decay rates, they involve exceptional sitautions that would be evident as well.
I have to agree with Anon that we don’t know for sure that radioactive decay rates are constant throughout history. We only know about recent history, which we can cross-check with tree rings and ice cores. Hopefully hie won’t have an aneurism, but Qi Gong masters are able to modify radioactive decay rates with their minds. If “the fall” has a basis in reality, the Earth could have had a much higher vibration at one time than it does now. Maybe the lower quantum decoherence would have drastically lowered the tunnel barrier for radioactive decay to raise the decay rate. However, I could be talking out of my butt now because the fossil record doesn’t support that. It’s death all the way back.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/14/2018 10:09PM by babyloncansuckit.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/14/2018 10:09PM by babyloncansuckit.
Now we reasoning. Hasn't the discussion been quite interesting?
I believe to explain the power of the mind you refer to uses all kind of occult power from God using the mind on the outside, using mortal laws. But the spirit inside that is eternal has no laws and is eternal. As far as I know, we have never applied the scientific method to the ideas inside us, connecting us by default to mortality and its laws. In eternity, there are no laws against the Holy Spirit. We do whatever we want to good vs another good. We do not choose between good and evil. That is for mortals.
I don't believe the earth fell because of Adam and Eve falling. The earth was created mortal 200,000 years ago. It was not created immortal, and the Bible doesn't say that. The theologians made an assumption the Bible does not support.
What are my assumptions, therefore, I am using to bridge to evolution from genetic one-cell organisms that take billions of years to grow into the final forms that we see without mutations and without missing links? One of these assumptions is that the mortality of earth existed before Adam and Eve came here 6000 years ago as immortals in a bubble of immortal light called the Garden of Eden. Jump out of the paradigm boxes of the mind and maybe someone can figure out my assumptions about evolutions that takes billions of years that is hidden in the Bible but can be deduced by reason.
I believe to explain the power of the mind you refer to uses all kind of occult power from God using the mind on the outside, using mortal laws. But the spirit inside that is eternal has no laws and is eternal. As far as I know, we have never applied the scientific method to the ideas inside us, connecting us by default to mortality and its laws. In eternity, there are no laws against the Holy Spirit. We do whatever we want to good vs another good. We do not choose between good and evil. That is for mortals.
I don't believe the earth fell because of Adam and Eve falling. The earth was created mortal 200,000 years ago. It was not created immortal, and the Bible doesn't say that. The theologians made an assumption the Bible does not support.
What are my assumptions, therefore, I am using to bridge to evolution from genetic one-cell organisms that take billions of years to grow into the final forms that we see without mutations and without missing links? One of these assumptions is that the mortality of earth existed before Adam and Eve came here 6000 years ago as immortals in a bubble of immortal light called the Garden of Eden. Jump out of the paradigm boxes of the mind and maybe someone can figure out my assumptions about evolutions that takes billions of years that is hidden in the Bible but can be deduced by reason.
Carbon dating can only be used up 60,000 years because of its half life My assumptions believe the earth is much older. Isn't this a fun discussion where we don't have to quote documentation but people are familiar with the ideas because they have already studied it. We can analyze the ideas rather than quote the ideas in a reference. This is great.
Let’s go with your assumption that the age of the planet is an assumption. It could be, but those estimates are grounded in solid science. They know the error bars. What do you think they are missing? Maybe you’ll think of something thousands of man years of work didn’t think of.
I have not learned this BB program yet. My answer is right above you not below you. Sorry.
Evolution doesn't require belief. It is self-evident.
It constantly demonstrates its principles.
It constantly demonstrates its principles.
“Don’t worry, evolution believes in you”
But it might stop and it’ll take away your opposable thumbs, upright gait and non-sloping brow.
But it might stop and it’ll take away your opposable thumbs, upright gait and non-sloping brow.
To elaborate a bit on BoJ's and Dave's answers...
Evolution (both the process and the scientific theory that describes how the process works) isn't a matter of 'belief.'
The process is an observed fact. The theory that describes how it works is built on literally hundreds of millions of observed facts. Neither require 'belief,' just learning.
It's the same for the age of the earth, as BoJ pointed out. No assumptions are involved, large amounts of evidence (observed and verified facts) from nearly every branch of science are involved.
If you're dealing with either as 'belief,' you've missed the point entirely. And you're not being 'rational.'
Evolution (both the process and the scientific theory that describes how the process works) isn't a matter of 'belief.'
The process is an observed fact. The theory that describes how it works is built on literally hundreds of millions of observed facts. Neither require 'belief,' just learning.
It's the same for the age of the earth, as BoJ pointed out. No assumptions are involved, large amounts of evidence (observed and verified facts) from nearly every branch of science are involved.
If you're dealing with either as 'belief,' you've missed the point entirely. And you're not being 'rational.'
I believe Creationism is true and there is some evident evolution occurring. But the conclusion that pure evolutionists come to (atheism) is unreasonable in my mind.
1) The assumption that evolution doesn't require belief is not well thought through. Of course people have to "believe" because there is so much missing information, scientists are constantly changing the one and only true story that is fed to the public, the terminology, the names and shapes of the dinosaurs, the names of the missing links and missing information. How can you not believe?
2) Only creationists believe, well that's false. There is a great deal of evidence that this earth is by design by a creator. Take for instance the complexity of an ordinary swiss watch. A pure evolutionist would say that by banging rocks together it could be created and function keeping time, after millions of years of trying. Obviously it was created by something smarter. Now compare that to the vastly more complicated function of an amoeba. The most basic living organism of which the earth is filled with.
3) the narrative that scientists keep giving of the age of the earth which is billions of years and dinosaurs being millions (which is constantly changing) is reliable for estimating time for less than 400 years. Hence the story fed to the public (from the government btw) is basically a story.
4) also consider who is selling the evolution story and the racket they are making. They've got all the progressive governments on their sides, All the national funding for sciences, All those tax dollars to be spent by university academanians and profiteers. Evolution is a big big business.
1) The assumption that evolution doesn't require belief is not well thought through. Of course people have to "believe" because there is so much missing information, scientists are constantly changing the one and only true story that is fed to the public, the terminology, the names and shapes of the dinosaurs, the names of the missing links and missing information. How can you not believe?
2) Only creationists believe, well that's false. There is a great deal of evidence that this earth is by design by a creator. Take for instance the complexity of an ordinary swiss watch. A pure evolutionist would say that by banging rocks together it could be created and function keeping time, after millions of years of trying. Obviously it was created by something smarter. Now compare that to the vastly more complicated function of an amoeba. The most basic living organism of which the earth is filled with.
3) the narrative that scientists keep giving of the age of the earth which is billions of years and dinosaurs being millions (which is constantly changing) is reliable for estimating time for less than 400 years. Hence the story fed to the public (from the government btw) is basically a story.
4) also consider who is selling the evolution story and the racket they are making. They've got all the progressive governments on their sides, All the national funding for sciences, All those tax dollars to be spent by university academanians and profiteers. Evolution is a big big business.
You need to do a bit more studying.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/14/2018 11:02AM by fossilman.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/14/2018 11:02AM by fossilman.
From my limited perspective, evolutionists simply go where the evidence leads them, while creationists MUST work within a specific framework. Sort of like when mormons ‘prove’ the church is true.
anono this week Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I believe Creationism is true and there is some
> evident evolution occurring. But the conclusion
> that pure evolutionists come to (atheism) is
> unreasonable in my mind.
The science of evolution makes no mention whatsoever of a god -- either the presence or absence of one. The notion that "evolutionists" come to an atheist conclusion is a false one.
However, it IS a fact that no "god" or "creation" is evidenced in evolution.
> 1) The assumption that evolution doesn't require
> belief is not well thought through. Of course
> people have to "believe" because there is so much
> missing information...
It's not just well thought through, it's fact.
You don't know how science works, do you?
I suggest some learning.
> 2) Only creationists believe, well that's false.
> There is a great deal of evidence that this earth
> is by design by a creator.
There is none.
Your "example" is a tired, worn-out argument from ignorance and incredulity fallacy. Not evidence.
> 3) the narrative that scientists keep giving of
> the age of the earth which is billions of years
> and dinosaurs being millions (which is constantly
> changing) is reliable for estimating time for less
> than 400 years. Hence the story fed to the public
> (from the government btw) is basically a story.
a) not from "the government"
b) I don't know where you got "400 years," but that's false.
> 4) also consider who is selling the evolution
> story and the racket they are making. They've got
> all the progressive governments on their sides,
The entire scientific community -- which includes conservatives and "progressives" -- agree with the fact of evolution.
You are wrong on numerous facts. That's why what you're using isn't "reason." It's ignorance.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I believe Creationism is true and there is some
> evident evolution occurring. But the conclusion
> that pure evolutionists come to (atheism) is
> unreasonable in my mind.
The science of evolution makes no mention whatsoever of a god -- either the presence or absence of one. The notion that "evolutionists" come to an atheist conclusion is a false one.
However, it IS a fact that no "god" or "creation" is evidenced in evolution.
> 1) The assumption that evolution doesn't require
> belief is not well thought through. Of course
> people have to "believe" because there is so much
> missing information...
It's not just well thought through, it's fact.
You don't know how science works, do you?
I suggest some learning.
> 2) Only creationists believe, well that's false.
> There is a great deal of evidence that this earth
> is by design by a creator.
There is none.
Your "example" is a tired, worn-out argument from ignorance and incredulity fallacy. Not evidence.
> 3) the narrative that scientists keep giving of
> the age of the earth which is billions of years
> and dinosaurs being millions (which is constantly
> changing) is reliable for estimating time for less
> than 400 years. Hence the story fed to the public
> (from the government btw) is basically a story.
a) not from "the government"
b) I don't know where you got "400 years," but that's false.
> 4) also consider who is selling the evolution
> story and the racket they are making. They've got
> all the progressive governments on their sides,
The entire scientific community -- which includes conservatives and "progressives" -- agree with the fact of evolution.
You are wrong on numerous facts. That's why what you're using isn't "reason." It's ignorance.
"The entire scientific community -- which includes conservatives and "progressives" -- agree with the fact of evolution."
~ Speaking as a conservative "evolutionist" channeling his inner Ziller, I confirm this statement.
My dad, who was a staunch Catholic, as well as, a modern Renaissance Man astride the scientific and the creative, fully embraced evolution as the tool by which God created a diversity of species.
However, why mess up a perfectly good theory by introducing an immeasurable variable with an indeterminate impact...a clear definition of "unnecessary".
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/14/2018 12:51PM by GregS.
~ Speaking as a conservative "evolutionist" channeling his inner Ziller, I confirm this statement.
My dad, who was a staunch Catholic, as well as, a modern Renaissance Man astride the scientific and the creative, fully embraced evolution as the tool by which God created a diversity of species.
However, why mess up a perfectly good theory by introducing an immeasurable variable with an indeterminate impact...a clear definition of "unnecessary".
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/14/2018 12:51PM by GregS.
Well yeah, but did you pray about it?
You might want to spend some time reading here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/
You will find that you are vastly uninformed.
http://www.talkorigins.org/
You will find that you are vastly uninformed.
That reads as a statement of belief that doesn’t explain anything. It only makes straw men out of the creative impulse. There needs be no creator when life itself generates the spirit of creation.
Is there evidence of this "spirit of creation" you mention?
:)
:)
Have you noticed that scientists aren't trying to disprove creationism? They are only searching for new information and adding it to their catalogue. Their goal is exploration of all there is for the purpose of enlightenment and are prepared to accept what ever that turns out to be.
Have you noticed that it is so important for creationists to prove creationism by disproving or discrediting evolution? They are searching for a way to prove a concept that has no evidence to back it up. Their goal is explanation of that which has no evidence--even today in 2018--and they are not prepared to accept whatever turns out to be. They want their hopes and they want them now.
A sunset proves there are sunsets. A flower proves there are flowers. And a baby proves there is a baby and we need to prepare a future for them brighter than the noon day sun, which BTW was not made after the earth as the Bible says.
Have you noticed that it is so important for creationists to prove creationism by disproving or discrediting evolution? They are searching for a way to prove a concept that has no evidence to back it up. Their goal is explanation of that which has no evidence--even today in 2018--and they are not prepared to accept whatever turns out to be. They want their hopes and they want them now.
A sunset proves there are sunsets. A flower proves there are flowers. And a baby proves there is a baby and we need to prepare a future for them brighter than the noon day sun, which BTW was not made after the earth as the Bible says.
I came to the conclusion that the Bible is bullshit. I have no need to rationalize it with evolution.
Ka-ching.
I'm all about all the findings on evolution, BUT, that has absolutely nothing to do with why I find the Bible to be bullshit. I read the Bible. I studied the Bible. If I'd never heard of evolution I would still find the Bible to be ridiculous--meaning worthy of ridicule.
I'm all about all the findings on evolution, BUT, that has absolutely nothing to do with why I find the Bible to be bullshit. I read the Bible. I studied the Bible. If I'd never heard of evolution I would still find the Bible to be ridiculous--meaning worthy of ridicule.
There are lots of things that I believe, absent hard proof. I believe that my Dr. really did finish medical school for instance.
Butttttttttttt.........
That belief exists because of established fact. Like I have an insurance company referral to that Dr. Or that Dr. has correctly treated me for something. Or that there are no complaints about that Dr. And so on.
So while we may not have a photo of evolution we have a ton of data that paints a fairly exact picture.
Butttttttttttt.........
That belief exists because of established fact. Like I have an insurance company referral to that Dr. Or that Dr. has correctly treated me for something. Or that there are no complaints about that Dr. And so on.
So while we may not have a photo of evolution we have a ton of data that paints a fairly exact picture.
Before someone try to set the Creationism and the Evolution as completely opposite theories it is good to read more about one discovery.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_genetic_elements
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15753564
It shows that there might be some truth in both them. At least I find such a "compatibility" between them!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_genetic_elements
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15753564
It shows that there might be some truth in both them. At least I find such a "compatibility" between them!
I'm sorry, but I don't get it. I read those reports and didn't see anything in there that requires or indicates a creator.
Am I missing something?
Am I missing something?
No, you're not missing anything. :)
And "creationism" isn't a theory.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/14/2018 12:58PM by ificouldhietokolob.
And "creationism" isn't a theory.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/14/2018 12:58PM by ificouldhietokolob.
"Am I missing something?"
COMMENT: Yes and No. What the writer is referring to (presumably) are the evolutionary mechanisms of modern evolutionary theory that undermine classic Darwinism, which is the idea that heritable change is solely or primarily the result of *random* mutations creating the variation that becomes subject to natural selection. The essential death of this classic Darwinian limitation is rarely acknowledged, fueling ID program to attack Darwism. Often Creationists confuse this undermining of "Darwinism" with the demise of Evolution itself, which of course is nonsense.
Often creationist quote Darwin's own language: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." As is well known, ID theorists have jumped all over this, and pointed to specific instances of biological complexity that were vulnerable to Darwin's claim. This resulted in Darwinists presenting highly speculative "just-so stories" (Stephen J. Gould term) as to how various complex organs could have evolved under the classic Darwinist mechanism. Often (to my mind) these stories are grossly inadequate, energizing ID theorists and their attack on Darwin. In essence they say (quite correctly) that Darwinism is inadequate to explain biological complexity, while falsely assuming that Evolution itself is also undermined. Quite the contrary, modern understanding of evolutionary processes make ID theory a much harder sell, not easier. In short, modern evolutionary theory, and its "epi-genetic" evolutionary mechanisms may, on the one hand, undermine Darwin, but on the other hand they significantly bolster evolution as the sole explanation for biological complexity.
Notwithstanding, clinging to classic Darwin has become an almost religious requirement. As stated in James A. Shapiro in Evolution: A View From The 21st Century,
"As many professional and popular press articles attest, the accidental, stochastic nature of mutations is still the prevailing and widely accepted wisdom on the subject."
Shapiro further notes:
"The perceived need to reject supernatural intervention unfortunately led the pioneers of evolutionary theory to erect an a priori philosophical distinction between the "blind" processes of hereditary variation and all other adaptive functions. But the capacity to change is itself adaptive."
In other words, in order to avoid supernatural explanations, the Darwinists cling to an assumption that all change was the result of random Darwinian processes, and have been resistant to acknowledge the capacity of DNA itself to change as an adaptational mechanism. (Shapiro cites the work of Barbara McClintock, the same evolutionary theorist cited by the poster you were responding to.
Note finally that many, if not most, of the people on the Board who blindly champion evolution are confused about these distinctions. Shapiro's book is highly recommended for those who want to understand evolutionary mechanisms as known today.
COMMENT: Yes and No. What the writer is referring to (presumably) are the evolutionary mechanisms of modern evolutionary theory that undermine classic Darwinism, which is the idea that heritable change is solely or primarily the result of *random* mutations creating the variation that becomes subject to natural selection. The essential death of this classic Darwinian limitation is rarely acknowledged, fueling ID program to attack Darwism. Often Creationists confuse this undermining of "Darwinism" with the demise of Evolution itself, which of course is nonsense.
Often creationist quote Darwin's own language: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." As is well known, ID theorists have jumped all over this, and pointed to specific instances of biological complexity that were vulnerable to Darwin's claim. This resulted in Darwinists presenting highly speculative "just-so stories" (Stephen J. Gould term) as to how various complex organs could have evolved under the classic Darwinist mechanism. Often (to my mind) these stories are grossly inadequate, energizing ID theorists and their attack on Darwin. In essence they say (quite correctly) that Darwinism is inadequate to explain biological complexity, while falsely assuming that Evolution itself is also undermined. Quite the contrary, modern understanding of evolutionary processes make ID theory a much harder sell, not easier. In short, modern evolutionary theory, and its "epi-genetic" evolutionary mechanisms may, on the one hand, undermine Darwin, but on the other hand they significantly bolster evolution as the sole explanation for biological complexity.
Notwithstanding, clinging to classic Darwin has become an almost religious requirement. As stated in James A. Shapiro in Evolution: A View From The 21st Century,
"As many professional and popular press articles attest, the accidental, stochastic nature of mutations is still the prevailing and widely accepted wisdom on the subject."
Shapiro further notes:
"The perceived need to reject supernatural intervention unfortunately led the pioneers of evolutionary theory to erect an a priori philosophical distinction between the "blind" processes of hereditary variation and all other adaptive functions. But the capacity to change is itself adaptive."
In other words, in order to avoid supernatural explanations, the Darwinists cling to an assumption that all change was the result of random Darwinian processes, and have been resistant to acknowledge the capacity of DNA itself to change as an adaptational mechanism. (Shapiro cites the work of Barbara McClintock, the same evolutionary theorist cited by the poster you were responding to.
Note finally that many, if not most, of the people on the Board who blindly champion evolution are confused about these distinctions. Shapiro's book is highly recommended for those who want to understand evolutionary mechanisms as known today.
Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT: Yes and No. What the writer is referring
> to (presumably) are the evolutionary mechanisms of
> modern evolutionary theory that undermine classic
> Darwinism, which is the idea that heritable change
> is solely or primarily the result of *random*
> mutations creating the variation that becomes
> subject to natural selection.
Classical Darwinism never made any such claim.
It's a fact that "random" mutations occur and ARE acted on by natural selection. Neither Darwin nor the theory that developed from his work ever claimed ONLY "random" mutations were involved.
> The essential death
> of this classic Darwinian limitation...
There was no such "limitation," and nothing is dead. The theory -- like all other scientific theories -- incorporated new information to make it a better, more accurate theory. That is always how science works.
You made the same false distinction about Newton's laws. Those "laws" describe how physical forces affect objects. Nothing in the laws say ONLY physical forces affect objects. If some force other than a physical force can be shown to exist and affect objects, the laws can accommodate those newly-found forces without missing a beat. It's the same with classical Darwinism -- it doesn't insist that ONLY random mutations be acted on by natural selection. In both instances, your insistence that explanations of observed facts exclude anything else are incorrect. In both instances, it was never claimed that the explanations are exclusive, and nothing else is allowed.
> Often creationist quote Darwin's own language: "If
> it could be demonstrated that any complex organ
> existed, which could not possibly have been formed
> by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my
> theory would absolutely break down."
Notice how nothing there indicates random mutations, or that those successive slight modifications MUST be random. How about that.
> As is well
> known, ID theorists...
ID is not a theory, and there are no ID theorists.
ID is simply "Nobody knows how this evolved, and it's complex, so it must have been designed." That's an argument from ignorance, not an evidence-based explanation. Not a theory -- nonsense. ID proponents attempts to define "specified complexity" have failed completely, and they have nothing but fallacy to fall back on.
> ...have jumped all over this, and
> pointed to specific instances of biological
> complexity that were vulnerable to Darwin's claim.
And yet never once have managed to meet Darwin's actual challenge. How about that again.
(pointing to instances that, in ignorance, MIGHT be "vulnerable" is not anything like demonstrating something)
> This resulted in Darwinists presenting highly
> speculative "just-so stories" (Stephen J. Gould
> term) as to how various complex organs could have
> evolved under the classic Darwinist mechanism.
Since ID proponents never demonstrated those things did NOT evolve by small changes over time, showing they COULD have evolved is all that's required to shut down the ID claim.
> In essence they say (quite
> correctly) that Darwinism is inadequate to explain
> biological complexity...
It's not, actually.
And even if that were the case (and it's not), that would not make ID claims true. So there's nothing "quite correctly" about such "attacks."
> Note finally that many, if not most, of the people
> on the Board who blindly champion evolution are
> confused about these distinctions. Shapiro's book
> is highly recommended for those who want to
> understand evolutionary mechanisms as known today.
I've read Shapiro's book. He makes many of the same false assumptions you do above (or did you just get them from him)?
Shapiro make some good points -- in other areas, he's simply flat-out wrong. And I would suggest you not take disagreement with Shapiro's false assumptions as ignorance of his arguments...those aren't the same thing at all.
For instance, your (and Shapiro's) insistence that "supernatural" claims were excluded from Darwinism in "desperation" are simply flat-out wrong. Supernatural claims aren't in any theory of evolution simply because there is no evidence of anything supernatural affecting biological life. If and when evidence of such a thing is ever found, it could be incorporated in the existing theory with no problem whatsoever. There just isn't any evidence of such a thing to incorporate.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/14/2018 02:59PM by ificouldhietokolob.
-------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT: Yes and No. What the writer is referring
> to (presumably) are the evolutionary mechanisms of
> modern evolutionary theory that undermine classic
> Darwinism, which is the idea that heritable change
> is solely or primarily the result of *random*
> mutations creating the variation that becomes
> subject to natural selection.
Classical Darwinism never made any such claim.
It's a fact that "random" mutations occur and ARE acted on by natural selection. Neither Darwin nor the theory that developed from his work ever claimed ONLY "random" mutations were involved.
> The essential death
> of this classic Darwinian limitation...
There was no such "limitation," and nothing is dead. The theory -- like all other scientific theories -- incorporated new information to make it a better, more accurate theory. That is always how science works.
You made the same false distinction about Newton's laws. Those "laws" describe how physical forces affect objects. Nothing in the laws say ONLY physical forces affect objects. If some force other than a physical force can be shown to exist and affect objects, the laws can accommodate those newly-found forces without missing a beat. It's the same with classical Darwinism -- it doesn't insist that ONLY random mutations be acted on by natural selection. In both instances, your insistence that explanations of observed facts exclude anything else are incorrect. In both instances, it was never claimed that the explanations are exclusive, and nothing else is allowed.
> Often creationist quote Darwin's own language: "If
> it could be demonstrated that any complex organ
> existed, which could not possibly have been formed
> by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my
> theory would absolutely break down."
Notice how nothing there indicates random mutations, or that those successive slight modifications MUST be random. How about that.
> As is well
> known, ID theorists...
ID is not a theory, and there are no ID theorists.
ID is simply "Nobody knows how this evolved, and it's complex, so it must have been designed." That's an argument from ignorance, not an evidence-based explanation. Not a theory -- nonsense. ID proponents attempts to define "specified complexity" have failed completely, and they have nothing but fallacy to fall back on.
> ...have jumped all over this, and
> pointed to specific instances of biological
> complexity that were vulnerable to Darwin's claim.
And yet never once have managed to meet Darwin's actual challenge. How about that again.
(pointing to instances that, in ignorance, MIGHT be "vulnerable" is not anything like demonstrating something)
> This resulted in Darwinists presenting highly
> speculative "just-so stories" (Stephen J. Gould
> term) as to how various complex organs could have
> evolved under the classic Darwinist mechanism.
Since ID proponents never demonstrated those things did NOT evolve by small changes over time, showing they COULD have evolved is all that's required to shut down the ID claim.
> In essence they say (quite
> correctly) that Darwinism is inadequate to explain
> biological complexity...
It's not, actually.
And even if that were the case (and it's not), that would not make ID claims true. So there's nothing "quite correctly" about such "attacks."
> Note finally that many, if not most, of the people
> on the Board who blindly champion evolution are
> confused about these distinctions. Shapiro's book
> is highly recommended for those who want to
> understand evolutionary mechanisms as known today.
I've read Shapiro's book. He makes many of the same false assumptions you do above (or did you just get them from him)?
Shapiro make some good points -- in other areas, he's simply flat-out wrong. And I would suggest you not take disagreement with Shapiro's false assumptions as ignorance of his arguments...those aren't the same thing at all.
For instance, your (and Shapiro's) insistence that "supernatural" claims were excluded from Darwinism in "desperation" are simply flat-out wrong. Supernatural claims aren't in any theory of evolution simply because there is no evidence of anything supernatural affecting biological life. If and when evidence of such a thing is ever found, it could be incorporated in the existing theory with no problem whatsoever. There just isn't any evidence of such a thing to incorporate.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/14/2018 02:59PM by ificouldhietokolob.
“If and when evidence of such a thing is ever found, it could be incorporated in the existing theory with no problem whatsoever.”
I think you are right. We live in a completely different world than 30 years ago. The decline of religious thinking is a sign of open mindedness.
It’s not a matter of such evidence being found, but of it not being dismissed. I shudder to think what kind of hyper religiosity could arise when such knowledge breaks through.
I think you are right. We live in a completely different world than 30 years ago. The decline of religious thinking is a sign of open mindedness.
It’s not a matter of such evidence being found, but of it not being dismissed. I shudder to think what kind of hyper religiosity could arise when such knowledge breaks through.
As usual, you offer no citations, or even well-formed arguments, to support any of your statements. You simply throw out a bunch of nonsense. My post to LW was intended simply to provide an explanation and information, not to strike up a debate about matters that are not debatable at this point.
I *will* point out Robert Shapiro's credentials, least anyone take your criticisms seriously:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_A._Shapiro
I will also note that Shapiro's book was endorsed by a host of well-known and well-established biologists and scientists, including: Sidney Altman (Nobel Laureate in Chemistry); Werner Arber (Nobel Laureate in Physiology); and Lynn Margulis.
According to Carl Woese:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Woese
"Professor Shapiro's offering is the best book on basic modern biology I have ever seen. As far as I can tell, the book is a game changer."
So, say whatever you want. You have no credibility.
I *will* point out Robert Shapiro's credentials, least anyone take your criticisms seriously:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_A._Shapiro
I will also note that Shapiro's book was endorsed by a host of well-known and well-established biologists and scientists, including: Sidney Altman (Nobel Laureate in Chemistry); Werner Arber (Nobel Laureate in Physiology); and Lynn Margulis.
According to Carl Woese:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Woese
"Professor Shapiro's offering is the best book on basic modern biology I have ever seen. As far as I can tell, the book is a game changer."
So, say whatever you want. You have no credibility.
It seems that “believing scientist” is the new “gay”. Do you see more of them coming out of the closet?
Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As usual, you offer no citations, or even
> well-formed arguments, to support any of your
> statements.
My arguments were all concise, logical, and well-formed.
Your assertion is demonstrably false.
> ...not to
> strike up a debate about matters that are not
> debatable at this point.
Everything is debatable. Especially false assumptions, flat-out false statements, and opinions.
> I *will* point out Robert Shapiro's credentials,
> least anyone take your criticisms seriously:
Nice appeal to authority fallacy.
Hint: having credentials does not make someone right.
> I will also note that Shapiro's book was endorsed
> by a host of well-known and well-established
> biologists and scientists, including: Sidney
> Altman (Nobel Laureate in Chemistry); Werner Arber
> (Nobel Laureate in Physiology); and Lynn Margulis.
Ooh, a multiple appeal to authority fallacy! You're hitting the jackpot!
I'll bet you real money those people found faults in the book. As I myself mentioned, it makes some good points. It also has flaws. What I found most interesting was that you latched onto the flawed parts, and didn't mention any of the other points. I wonder why...?
> "Professor Shapiro's offering is the best book on
> basic modern biology I have ever seen. As far as
> I can tell, the book is a game changer."
Good for him.
It's an interesting opinion, not a fact. And I'll bet that reviewer found some faults in the book as well.
> So, say whatever you want. You have no
> credibility.
Because you say so? Because you offered fallacy to back you up? "These famous smart people liked his book" doesn't refute a single one of my points.
Oops.
Here, I'll post a direct chance for you to rebut me, Henry:
Let's start by dismissing the most ridiculous part of your assumption about Darwin: that he claimed ONLY random mutations were what natural selection acted on. Since Darwin didn't know about DNA or genetics, that's easily dismissed out of hand.
Now here's your chance to refute...find anything in Darwin's writings, or anything from a "Darwinist" scientist in the past 100 years, that states "random mutations are the only thing natural selection has to operate on."
Go right ahead. We'll wait.
When you can't find any such thing (and you won't), you can come back and admit your claim that "classical Darwinism" was based on the premise was false.
(by the way, to look for what you won't find, you'll have to step over literally thousands of quotes in the same time period from biologists and other scientists pointing out other things natural selection operates on, studies in population genetics that were "mainstream Darwinism" that contradict your claim, and thousands of other refutations of your premise. Try not to ignore them, ok?)
-------------------------------------------------------
> As usual, you offer no citations, or even
> well-formed arguments, to support any of your
> statements.
My arguments were all concise, logical, and well-formed.
Your assertion is demonstrably false.
> ...not to
> strike up a debate about matters that are not
> debatable at this point.
Everything is debatable. Especially false assumptions, flat-out false statements, and opinions.
> I *will* point out Robert Shapiro's credentials,
> least anyone take your criticisms seriously:
Nice appeal to authority fallacy.
Hint: having credentials does not make someone right.
> I will also note that Shapiro's book was endorsed
> by a host of well-known and well-established
> biologists and scientists, including: Sidney
> Altman (Nobel Laureate in Chemistry); Werner Arber
> (Nobel Laureate in Physiology); and Lynn Margulis.
Ooh, a multiple appeal to authority fallacy! You're hitting the jackpot!
I'll bet you real money those people found faults in the book. As I myself mentioned, it makes some good points. It also has flaws. What I found most interesting was that you latched onto the flawed parts, and didn't mention any of the other points. I wonder why...?
> "Professor Shapiro's offering is the best book on
> basic modern biology I have ever seen. As far as
> I can tell, the book is a game changer."
Good for him.
It's an interesting opinion, not a fact. And I'll bet that reviewer found some faults in the book as well.
> So, say whatever you want. You have no
> credibility.
Because you say so? Because you offered fallacy to back you up? "These famous smart people liked his book" doesn't refute a single one of my points.
Oops.
Here, I'll post a direct chance for you to rebut me, Henry:
Let's start by dismissing the most ridiculous part of your assumption about Darwin: that he claimed ONLY random mutations were what natural selection acted on. Since Darwin didn't know about DNA or genetics, that's easily dismissed out of hand.
Now here's your chance to refute...find anything in Darwin's writings, or anything from a "Darwinist" scientist in the past 100 years, that states "random mutations are the only thing natural selection has to operate on."
Go right ahead. We'll wait.
When you can't find any such thing (and you won't), you can come back and admit your claim that "classical Darwinism" was based on the premise was false.
(by the way, to look for what you won't find, you'll have to step over literally thousands of quotes in the same time period from biologists and other scientists pointing out other things natural selection operates on, studies in population genetics that were "mainstream Darwinism" that contradict your claim, and thousands of other refutations of your premise. Try not to ignore them, ok?)
First my full statement in context:
"What the writer is referring to (presumably) are the evolutionary mechanisms of modern evolutionary theory that undermine classic Darwinism, which is the idea that heritable change is solely or primarily the result of *random* mutations creating the variation that becomes subject to natural selection. The essential death of this classic Darwinian limitation is rarely acknowledged, fueling ID program to attack Darwism. Often Creationists confuse this undermining of "Darwinism" with the demise of Evolution itself, which of course is nonsense."
Notice I used the words "solely or primarily" to describe Darwinism's commitment to random mutations. In either event, Darwinism, as described repeatedly as "the modern synthesis, or Neo-Darwinism, is essentially dead. What we have now is something "radically different."
Now, here are the quotes you asked for:
"His [Darwin’s] neo-Darwinist followers took the same kind of black-box approach in the pre-DNA era by declaring all genetic change to be accidental and random with respect to biological function or need.” [Shapiro, p. 1]
Note "all." I thought you read this book!
Next quote:
“We will now see . . . how and why contemporary biology has changed classical neo-Darwinism adaptationism beyond recognition. Many important discoveries and many explicit quotes by their discoverers bear witness to this momentous change.”
“These days biologists have good reasons to believe that selection among randomly generated minor variants of phenotypic traits falls radically short of explaining the appearance of new forms of life. Assuming that evolution occurs over very, very long periods does not help if, as we believe, endogenous factors and multi-level genetic regulations play an essential role in determining the phenotypic options among which environmental variables can choose. Contrary to traditional opinion, it needs to be emphasized that natural selection among traits generated at random cannot by itself be the basic principle of evolution."
[Jerry Foder and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, What Darwin Got Wrong, p. 20-21]
Notice the words, "contemporary biology has changed classical neo-Darwinism adaptationism beyond recognition." Also, "selection among randomly generated minor variants of phenotypic traits falls radically short of explaining the appearance of new forms of life." Finally, "traits generated at random cannot by itself be the basic principle of evolution."
All of this is essentially what I said in my post.
SO, AS USUAL, I PROVIDE THE CITATIONS AND QUOTES AND YOU PROVIDE THE BS!
"What the writer is referring to (presumably) are the evolutionary mechanisms of modern evolutionary theory that undermine classic Darwinism, which is the idea that heritable change is solely or primarily the result of *random* mutations creating the variation that becomes subject to natural selection. The essential death of this classic Darwinian limitation is rarely acknowledged, fueling ID program to attack Darwism. Often Creationists confuse this undermining of "Darwinism" with the demise of Evolution itself, which of course is nonsense."
Notice I used the words "solely or primarily" to describe Darwinism's commitment to random mutations. In either event, Darwinism, as described repeatedly as "the modern synthesis, or Neo-Darwinism, is essentially dead. What we have now is something "radically different."
Now, here are the quotes you asked for:
"His [Darwin’s] neo-Darwinist followers took the same kind of black-box approach in the pre-DNA era by declaring all genetic change to be accidental and random with respect to biological function or need.” [Shapiro, p. 1]
Note "all." I thought you read this book!
Next quote:
“We will now see . . . how and why contemporary biology has changed classical neo-Darwinism adaptationism beyond recognition. Many important discoveries and many explicit quotes by their discoverers bear witness to this momentous change.”
“These days biologists have good reasons to believe that selection among randomly generated minor variants of phenotypic traits falls radically short of explaining the appearance of new forms of life. Assuming that evolution occurs over very, very long periods does not help if, as we believe, endogenous factors and multi-level genetic regulations play an essential role in determining the phenotypic options among which environmental variables can choose. Contrary to traditional opinion, it needs to be emphasized that natural selection among traits generated at random cannot by itself be the basic principle of evolution."
[Jerry Foder and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, What Darwin Got Wrong, p. 20-21]
Notice the words, "contemporary biology has changed classical neo-Darwinism adaptationism beyond recognition." Also, "selection among randomly generated minor variants of phenotypic traits falls radically short of explaining the appearance of new forms of life." Finally, "traits generated at random cannot by itself be the basic principle of evolution."
All of this is essentially what I said in my post.
SO, AS USUAL, I PROVIDE THE CITATIONS AND QUOTES AND YOU PROVIDE THE BS!
Now that I have calmed down a bit, let's look at your statements:
"My arguments were all concise, logical, and well-formed.
Your assertion is demonstrably false."
COMMENT: No they weren't. They were merely unsupported statements demonstrating your false understanding of biology and evolution. An argument involves premises (facts) and conclusions that follow therefrom. Bare statements saying that I (and cited academic experts) are wrong, is not an argument.
_______________________________________
Nice appeal to authority fallacy.
Hint: having credentials does not make someone right.
COMMENT: True, but when facts, arguments and pure logic fail, one has to resort to authority. I have no other vehicle to show readers that you have no idea what you are talking about. (I have long since given up on convincing you.)
_______________________________________
I'll bet you real money those people found faults in the book. As I myself mentioned, it makes some good points. It also has flaws. What I found most interesting was that you latched onto the flawed parts, and didn't mention any of the other points. I wonder why...?"
COMMENT: O.K. Let's have some cited authority for the flaws? These are your imagined flaws. No doubt biologists disagree with Shapiro on some points, but his entire thesis, "modern evolutionary theory," is based upon the theme that evolutionary biology has moved far beyond Darwinism; and specifically Neo-Darwinism. On that point, I doubt any of them would disagree. But, let's have a quote!
_________________________________________________
> "Professor Shapiro's offering is the best book on
> basic modern biology I have ever seen. As far as
> I can tell, the book is a game changer."
Good for him.
It's an interesting opinion, not a fact. And I'll bet that reviewer found some faults in the book as well.
COMMENT: Right. Merely the opinion of Carl Woese, a microbiologists and biophysicist. So, let's forget him, and instead subscribe to your opinion--even though you have not articulated any argument or cited any authority suggesting that he is wrong in his view.
_______________________________________
> So, say whatever you want. You have no
> credibility.
Because you say so? Because you offered fallacy to back you up? "These famous smart people liked his book" doesn't refute a single one of my points.
COMMENT: It is not that I said so. The conclusion is based upon your own demonstration. Your response to my post, and the opinions of experts I cited, speaks volumes on this issue.
________________________________________
Here, I'll post a direct chance for you to rebut me, Henry:
Let's start by dismissing the most ridiculous part of your assumption about Darwin: that he claimed ONLY random mutations were what natural selection acted on. Since Darwin didn't know about DNA or genetics, that's easily dismissed out of hand.
Now here's your chance to refute...find anything in Darwin's writings, or anything from a "Darwinist" scientist in the past 100 years, that states "random mutations are the only thing natural selection has to operate on."
Go right ahead. We'll wait.
COMMENT: First, everyone knows, that "Darwinism" does not just mean the views of Darwin himself. It represents a theory that was cast in the twentieth century into Neo-Darwinism, which includes genetics. Newsflash! Remember, Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene," that was Neo-Darwinism. Second, virtually every biologist that was educated or professionally active in the 70s, 80s, or 90s, was a Neo-Darwinist. That was the dominant understanding of evolution at the time, which is why it persists today and is resistant to change.
For quotes, see above.
You have been roundly refuted. But, will you change your views? No. You are as stubborn in your false scientific beliefs and understandings as the most ardent Mormon apologist.
________________________________________________
When you can't find any such thing (and you won't), you can come back and admit your claim that "classical Darwinism" was based on the premise was false.
COMMENT: See above. This is just embarrassing.
_______________________________________________
(by the way, to look for what you won't find, you'll have to step over literally thousands of quotes in the same time period from biologists and other scientists pointing out other things natural selection operates on, studies in population genetics that were "mainstream Darwinism" that contradict your claim, and thousands of other refutations of your premise. Try not to ignore them, ok?)
COMMENT: Again, no quotes, no citations, just empty rhetoric. Darwinism, in its original and modern forms, was a biological theory explaining how biological organisms evolve. That is the issue here, not how "natural selection" might be applied in other contexts.
"My arguments were all concise, logical, and well-formed.
Your assertion is demonstrably false."
COMMENT: No they weren't. They were merely unsupported statements demonstrating your false understanding of biology and evolution. An argument involves premises (facts) and conclusions that follow therefrom. Bare statements saying that I (and cited academic experts) are wrong, is not an argument.
_______________________________________
Nice appeal to authority fallacy.
Hint: having credentials does not make someone right.
COMMENT: True, but when facts, arguments and pure logic fail, one has to resort to authority. I have no other vehicle to show readers that you have no idea what you are talking about. (I have long since given up on convincing you.)
_______________________________________
I'll bet you real money those people found faults in the book. As I myself mentioned, it makes some good points. It also has flaws. What I found most interesting was that you latched onto the flawed parts, and didn't mention any of the other points. I wonder why...?"
COMMENT: O.K. Let's have some cited authority for the flaws? These are your imagined flaws. No doubt biologists disagree with Shapiro on some points, but his entire thesis, "modern evolutionary theory," is based upon the theme that evolutionary biology has moved far beyond Darwinism; and specifically Neo-Darwinism. On that point, I doubt any of them would disagree. But, let's have a quote!
_________________________________________________
> "Professor Shapiro's offering is the best book on
> basic modern biology I have ever seen. As far as
> I can tell, the book is a game changer."
Good for him.
It's an interesting opinion, not a fact. And I'll bet that reviewer found some faults in the book as well.
COMMENT: Right. Merely the opinion of Carl Woese, a microbiologists and biophysicist. So, let's forget him, and instead subscribe to your opinion--even though you have not articulated any argument or cited any authority suggesting that he is wrong in his view.
_______________________________________
> So, say whatever you want. You have no
> credibility.
Because you say so? Because you offered fallacy to back you up? "These famous smart people liked his book" doesn't refute a single one of my points.
COMMENT: It is not that I said so. The conclusion is based upon your own demonstration. Your response to my post, and the opinions of experts I cited, speaks volumes on this issue.
________________________________________
Here, I'll post a direct chance for you to rebut me, Henry:
Let's start by dismissing the most ridiculous part of your assumption about Darwin: that he claimed ONLY random mutations were what natural selection acted on. Since Darwin didn't know about DNA or genetics, that's easily dismissed out of hand.
Now here's your chance to refute...find anything in Darwin's writings, or anything from a "Darwinist" scientist in the past 100 years, that states "random mutations are the only thing natural selection has to operate on."
Go right ahead. We'll wait.
COMMENT: First, everyone knows, that "Darwinism" does not just mean the views of Darwin himself. It represents a theory that was cast in the twentieth century into Neo-Darwinism, which includes genetics. Newsflash! Remember, Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene," that was Neo-Darwinism. Second, virtually every biologist that was educated or professionally active in the 70s, 80s, or 90s, was a Neo-Darwinist. That was the dominant understanding of evolution at the time, which is why it persists today and is resistant to change.
For quotes, see above.
You have been roundly refuted. But, will you change your views? No. You are as stubborn in your false scientific beliefs and understandings as the most ardent Mormon apologist.
________________________________________________
When you can't find any such thing (and you won't), you can come back and admit your claim that "classical Darwinism" was based on the premise was false.
COMMENT: See above. This is just embarrassing.
_______________________________________________
(by the way, to look for what you won't find, you'll have to step over literally thousands of quotes in the same time period from biologists and other scientists pointing out other things natural selection operates on, studies in population genetics that were "mainstream Darwinism" that contradict your claim, and thousands of other refutations of your premise. Try not to ignore them, ok?)
COMMENT: Again, no quotes, no citations, just empty rhetoric. Darwinism, in its original and modern forms, was a biological theory explaining how biological organisms evolve. That is the issue here, not how "natural selection" might be applied in other contexts.
I don't believe evolution is true.
I accept it as the best explanation of the available evidence. Some very good evidence at that.
I accept it as the best explanation of the available evidence. Some very good evidence at that.
You can believe whatever you want. We have freedom of thought in this country.
Evolution is a fact. It is true whether you believe it or not.
(Paraphrasing Neil deGrasse Tyson)
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/14/2018 04:35PM by SusieQ#1.
Evolution is a fact. It is true whether you believe it or not.
(Paraphrasing Neil deGrasse Tyson)
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/14/2018 04:35PM by SusieQ#1.
I read through all of these posts, and I posted two responses to the Brother of Jerry near the top of he thread to give a generic response to everyone. If you want me to post to you, let me know somehow.
If I may offer one point, nothing verbose or well researched. Just something minor.
In math solving a complex problem is made easier by reducing each component of an equation to it's standard form. Or the most common denominator. In philosophy, too often instead of reducing the discussion we make it more complex.
So since this discussion has nothing to do with evolution but instead the impetus for evolution. You have not reduced this equation. In this case the reduction is to eliminate the things that cannot be known. God is not a rational explanation because it is a random explanation unsupported by any data. The problem is that you have to make up a god to fit into your equation for it to even work. That isn't rational at all.
In math solving a complex problem is made easier by reducing each component of an equation to it's standard form. Or the most common denominator. In philosophy, too often instead of reducing the discussion we make it more complex.
So since this discussion has nothing to do with evolution but instead the impetus for evolution. You have not reduced this equation. In this case the reduction is to eliminate the things that cannot be known. God is not a rational explanation because it is a random explanation unsupported by any data. The problem is that you have to make up a god to fit into your equation for it to even work. That isn't rational at all.
Me too!. Look how many evolve from member to non member
The great thing about science is its true whether you believe in it or not. You can either accept it or deny it, in which case you are delusional.
Delusion: persisting in erroneous beliefs, despite superior evidence to the contrary.
Delusion: persisting in erroneous beliefs, despite superior evidence to the contrary.
What a bunch of nerds
well ain't that just wonderful!
The earth is 4.5 billion years old.
Evolution is a fact.
If you really want to "know if it is true, stop being lazy and do some studying.
I get tired of idiots that won't accept science. This is what gave us Donald Trump and made Americans the laughing stock rednecks of the world.
Evolution is a fact.
If you really want to "know if it is true, stop being lazy and do some studying.
I get tired of idiots that won't accept science. This is what gave us Donald Trump and made Americans the laughing stock rednecks of the world.
Damn, I need to check in more often. I missed almost all the fun. :(
Sorry, you can't reply to this topic. It has been closed. Please start another thread and continue the conversation.