Evolution is perhaps the best explanation we have, but this is a pseudo-theory. By this mean, it only satisfy one criteria of a true science because it does not predict how will be the next stage of evolution. With a couple of millions years of data, one should think one could predict how any species will change given a certain environment. Yet, one knows too well, that as the environment changes like it is now, the species don't evolve, they just die.
Originally posted by telerionI think evolution is an elegant theory but it has shortcomings that have not been addressed. Like I said before, the lack of "intermediary species" is just one contradiction.
Originally posted by jmonkey
[b]For starters, who said I wasn't an evolutionist.
You're not an evolutionist. Can we cut the false pretenses?[/b]
We are constantly finding new details about other theories like the Big Bang theory and the theory of relativity. The Big Bang theory has alternatives and other evidence suggests that the speed of light is not a constant such as the theory of relativity suggests.
I don't believe that scientists are treated like heretics when they question any of those theories. Evolution has lots of good ideas and it will continue to change but noone should treat it like an absolute truth.
Originally posted by sonhouseThe light from the star that left one billion years ago only gives how far away it is, one billion light years by definition,
kelly: The light from the star that left one billion years ago only gives how far away it is, one billion light years by definition, the distance light travels in one year: 5.8 trillion miles times one billion means the star is 5.8 E12 plus 1 E 9 = 5.8 E 21 miles away. Thats all you can say without further analysis of the light, but you gave that as a given ...[text shortened]... egrate thousands of photons together to get a reliable reading of its spectrum. Does that help?
The light that is here is here, the star that is one billion light years
away is just that, one billion light years away. The age of light can be
one billion years, if and only if the light travelled at the rate we believe
it travels and started at the star where it is and ended up here. So
when age is asked, are there assumptions being made if we start
calling the light here one billion years old? Can we know how old the
light is by simply knowing rate and distance if we don't know when the
light reaching us has started, where it started from?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayKelly,
[b] The light from the star that left one billion years ago only gives how far away it is, one billion light years by definition,
The light that is here is here, the star that is one billion light years
away is just that, one billion light years away. The age of light can be
one billion years, if and only if the light travelled at the rate we belie ...[text shortened]... istance if we don't know when the
light reaching us has started, where it started from?
Kelly[/b]
A mind question for you. And this is just a bit of fun trivia.
We can calculate where the Milkey Way galaxy was a billion years ago. Can we point a telescope there and see ourselves?
Why? Why not?
Originally posted by Celsius IWith a couple of millions years of data, one should think one could predict how any species will change given a certain environment.
Evolution is perhaps the best explanation we have, but this is a pseudo-theory. By this mean, it only satisfy one criteria of a true science because it does not predict how will be the next stage of evolution. With a couple of millions years of data, one should think one could predict how any species will change given a certain environment. Yet, one knows ...[text shortened]... well, that as the environment changes like it is now, the species don't evolve, they just die.
Good point. Maybe this will be what I base my career on. It sounds fascinating. To start with I'll need to make model 'worlds' which I control all the variables for. Sim City as a career! 🙂
Yet, one knows too well, that as the environment changes like it is now, the species don't evolve, they just die.
What? Can you elaborate? I don't believe you.
Originally posted by jmonkeyIntermediary species are important because we should see them all over the place, both in the fossil record and now. We should even see our cellular makeup in the process of evolving.
For starters, who said I wasn't an evolutionist. My point is that the TOE isn't clear cut and that at present, faith is required to follow it as truth.
Intermediary species are important because we should see them all over the place, both in the fossil record and now. We should even see our cellular makeup in the process of evolving. Life went through ...[text shortened]... than any reptile. Etc.
Macroevolution is one model that explains these observations. "
We do, on both counts.
Life went through mass extinctions and then very quickly returned so that inside a relatively compact strata we should see numerous intermediary species... but we don't.
I haven't looked into this enough to comment.
Now that's just wrong. You completely took my response out of context.
The reason I said what I did is that we do have intermediary fossils for the evolution of whales. However, I want you to commit to a predictive stance about what would be sufficient evidence for the macroevolutionary model of how whales came to be in their present form before I brought up the fossils we have. Not committing to specific predictions is one way people avoid having to support their position, because no matter what evidence the opposition comes up with, a person can just say "that doesn't count because of XXX" - a reason they made up after they saw the evidence and needed a reason to discount it's validity.
I did assume you were doing this when I made my comment, so if that's not the case I apologize. However I think often it's not a conscious thing, so you may not be aware if you are doing this. This is why critical evaluation of one's own views is very important.
Finally we agree.
If we agree on that point, why did you say "...that biologists are able to OBSERVE the species that are alive today and can tell that the prehensile tail evolved as a similar adaptation to their environment rather than as a remnant from an earlier species"? I must be misunderstanding what you intended to communicate with that sentence.
Yes, you brought it up. This is from your earlier post.
I am aware of what I wrote. What I'd like to know is why you brought up the word 'complexity'. I did not use that word - you interpreted what I wrote in such a way that you felt your paraphrase which included the word 'complexity' was accurate, but it is not. If you look at this thread you'll see I find the use of the word 'complexity' very vague, non rigorous, and ultimately not useful when it comes to discussing the Theory of Evolution:
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=22541&page=1
It's a long thread and I don't know when the word 'complexity' first came up in it, but you can see on page 8 that I am challenging others' use of the word already.
Originally posted by KellyJayWe cannot absolutely know that the light came all the way from the star. We do assume this is the case. However this is a very valid and reasonable assumption in the lack of conflicting data, just as it's valid and reasonable for you to assume that if someone's well nourished and not hungry they must have eaten something in the last week, or that if you type on the keyboard in a certain way the posts you want to appear on RHP will indeed appear if your computer has enough electricity, RHP is not down for maintainance, etc.
[b] The light from the star that left one billion years ago only gives how far away it is, one billion light years by definition,
The light that is here is here, the star that is one billion light years
away is just that, one billi ...[text shortened]... the
light reaching us has started, where it started from?
Kelly[/b]
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWow. Never has such a small bit of declaration been subjected to such a tortuous bending... by so few. Say What?
We cannot absolutely know that the light came all the way from the star. We do assume this is the case. However this is a very valid and reasonable assumption in the lack of conflicting data, just as it's valid and reasonable for you to assume that if someone's well nourished and not hungry they must have eaten something in the last week, or that ...[text shortened]... ll indeed appear if your computer has enough electricity, RHP is not down for maintainance, etc.
Let me guess. We are not supposed to notice that a silly premise becomes the only rule of our existence?
Perhaps someone could clear something up for me:
I am not entirely certain that I understand the difference between "creationism" and "intelligent design." Though I have not read any prominent authors from either of these camps, I believe the terms have quite different meanings, and will analyze them accordingly.
The term "creationism" seems to me to imply that the world is simply as God has made it. Meaning that God, at a given time (presumably the birth of the universe described in Genesis) created the world and everything in it, during a seven day period. This in turn implies that in addition to creating the oceans, land, plants, animals, and humans that inhabit the world God also deliberately created various objects deep below the earth's surface that resemble the bones of various unfamiliar animals, plants, germs etc. We, as lowly humans could hardly understand the reason for such decisions, but since it is God's will, and God's power, we hardly need to. I am sure the difficulties with such a system are apparent to everyone, so I will not dwell on them here.
On the other hand, the term "intelligent design" seems to leave the door open to much more interesting possibilities. God not only created the universe, but did so with a certain design or goal in mind. "Intelligent design" does not seem (to me at least) to invalidate the vast amount of empirical data that has been gathered by scientists for hundreds of years, it simply offers another explanation for the data. Namely that God created the universe 13 billion years ago (which I believe is the current estimation of the age of the universe), but he did so with a specific end in mind. The formation of galaxies, solar systems, stars, planets, and life, are all simply stepping stones on the way to the completion of this design.
Darwinism (and I am no expert) claims that the world's occupants reached their current form through a complex chain of enviormental pressures, competition with other species, and mutation. With each change that is successfully integrated into the gene pool of a species, that species (presumably) becomes better suited to the enviorment around it. On this account, there is no "improvement" only "adaptation." This, of course, implies that no species is inherantly better or worse than any other, even its predessors in the evolutionary chain. Each species is simply judged by how well it is suited to the enviorment in which it exists (or existed). This is somewhat counter-intuitive. Human beings WANT to say that we are "more advanced" than our prehistoric ancestors, but on this relativistic view, such a statement cannot be made. We may be better suited to our current enviornment, but this does not imply that homo sapiens could survive in conditions endured by, say, homo erectus
On the other hand, the term "intelligent design" seems to imply that something (lets call it "God"😉 created the universe with a specific end in mind, and that we are steadily moving towards this end. All scientific data is entirely compatable with this definition of the term. The universe IS in fact 13 billion years old, dinosaurs DID exist, and humans DID evolve from monkeys; all according to God's great plan. On this view, the evolution of the species is, in fact, improvement and advancement as we move closer and closer to God's desired end. This seems to fit more closely with our intuition on this point than does the theory of random adaptation proposed by evolutionists.
The most interesting point about this claim is that, when we look back to the beginning of it all (and by this I mean the set of circumstances that actually set off the Big Bang), intelligent design is as plausible as any scientific explanation I have ever heard. I have never read, nor heard about any widely accepted paradigms in the scientific community that explain WHY the Big Bang happened. They postulate several different sterile scenarios in which a new factor was introduced to the super-massive point that theoretically contained the entire mass of the known universe. However, any such claims are simply guesses, believed on faith and widely disagreed upon. Basically, they just don't know. The theory of intelligent design serves as well as any of these to explain the initial circumstances that led to the Big Bang.
Now I am sure that during the course of my discussion I have departed from the accepted definition of "intelligent design." If anyone could enlighten me as to exactly how, I would be most appreciative. As I said, I have read very little on the subject, and it is very possible that I have misrepresented the term completely. However, I am much more interested in hearing an argument that in some way explains the EXISTENCE of the universe in a better way than the initial assumption that some intelligent being created it. It is primarily such arguments that keep me agnostic as opposed to athiest.
Thanks all! And sorry about the length of the post, I got into sort of a groove there...
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI admire your patience with these people. Basically, your speaking to a propaganda track. Jmonk doesn't know the first thing about any of the "problems" Jmonk lists. You can explain it or give your best knowledge and Jmonk will simply go back to the same arguing points. It's like arguing with a tape player. When you exhaust all the objections, it rewinds and starts over again.
[b]Intermediary species are important because we should see them all over the place, both in the fossil record and now. We should even see our cellular makeup in the process of evolving.
We do, on both counts.
Life went ...[text shortened]... page 8 that I am challenging others' use of the word already.[/b]
Originally posted by telerionYou may be right. However, my responding serves a number of purposes. Why do people blindly accept what the propagandists tell them? Maybe because they believe that the TOE is weak and non rigorous because confident and knowledgeable sounding people say so. Well, if I show myself to be confident and knowledgeable, maybe these people might listen to me too. Even if the person I am addressing refuses to listen, an onlooking third party might be swayed to take my position seriously based on my arguments.
I admire your patience with these people. Basically, your speaking to a propaganda track. Jmonk doesn't know the first thing about any of the "problems" Jmonk lists. You can explain it or give your best knowledge and Jmonk will simply go back to the same arguing points. It's like arguing with a tape player. When you exhaust all the objections, it rewinds and starts over again.
It also serves as a way for me to check myself and make sure my beliefs are well supported by evidence and solid reasoning. Also, I often am able to nab little tidbits of information about this field which I am considering making my life's work during these debates.
Despite the fact that the same stuff gets thrown at me and there are always new arguments being created, usually flawed, in a seemingly never ending deluge, I find these debates worthwhile.
Originally posted by AThousandYounghttp://www.wordmp3.com/dl.asp?Item=350049242213244879
You may be right. However, my responding serves a number of purposes. ....
Despite the fact that the same stuff gets thrown at me and there are always new arguments being created, usually flawed, in a seemingly never ending deluge, I find these debates worthwhile.
This is the link to an mp3 file of Dr. Greg Bahnsen titled Is Evolution Scientific? It's free at this time from wordmp3.com but they change their freebies so you might want to get it soon.
Bahnsen was one of the best modern Apologist and Philosopher. In this lecture, he examines the way the theory of evolution was formulated by Darwin, and shows the problems TOE has as a scientific theory. He gives a lot of historical detail of what was happen in science at the time, what precipitated it, how it was viewed, etc. Bahnsen does not go into the evidence used to support TOE in this lecture, I think that's the follow up lecture.
I'm sure you will find things you disagree with as far as Bahnsen's conclusions, but the history and background is very interesting, and the logical problems the TOE has are also interesting. Bahnsen is not you typical "Creationinst" but I think you'll will still find it interesting.
I snipped this from wordmp3:
Greg L. Bahnsen, (1948-1995) received the B.A. from Westmont College, M.Div. and Th.M. degrees from Westminster Theological Seminary, Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of Southern California. Dr. Bahnsen was an ordained OPC minister, an experienced apologist and debater, a clear and cogent teacher of the Christian worldview who was devoted to training believers in understanding and applying the Christian faith to every area of life. He published numerous scholarly articles, a number of well-known books, and has over 1,500 recorded lectures and sermons.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThe only thing I'm attempting to point out is that much of what is
We cannot absolutely know that the light came all the way from the star. We do assume this is the case. However this is a very valid and reasonable assumption in the lack of conflicting data, just as it's valid and reasonable for ...[text shortened]... ter has enough electricity, RHP is not down for maintainance, etc.
called proof,by some here is built upon assujmptions. From there
I cannot tell you this happened or that happened with any more
certainity than you can tell me, when we are talking about events
that happened in our distant past. It is faith if your building
your beliefs upon assumptions of what may be true, or how this
could have, or that could have happened.
You looking for something reasonable is fair, it is a good thing, an
honest attempt to get it right; however, everything we bring to the
table to figure out what happened X years ago are all here and now.
Which means we again are assigning meaning to those things, and
if we are attempting to prove a point we all look at things the way
we want them to be.
It is really seems easy to make assumptions about 1 billion years ago
because who can say your wrong?
Kelly
Originally posted by telerionThis tape player idea is funny because I feel the same way that you do. We are throwing our own statements back at each other. I enjoy these debates so I can learn other's opinions and so far I am still confident with with my opinions. I understand noone is going to change their opinion but keeping an open mind is important.
I admire your patience with these people. Basically, your speaking to a propaganda track. Jmonk doesn't know the first thing about any of the "problems" Jmonk lists. You can explain it or give your best knowledge and Jmonk will simply go back to the same arguing points. It's like arguing with a tape player. When you exhaust all the objections, it rewinds and starts over again.
The biggest problem with evolution is that we aren't observing anything, we are inferring a solution. I believe that inferring is a good excericse in logic but evolution requires one to have faith in the assumptions being made. Some of the conclusions being made in the TOE are just bad logic.
Evolution helps to explain what we see in the world but when we look at the fossil record we are not observing evolution. It is important to be able to differentiate between what we observe and what we assume. To really "believe" in evolution one has to blur the line between evidence and assumption.
Originally posted by jmonkeyjmonkey, you might find this interesting also, or anyone else. I'm wondering if anyone has tried to download it yet.
This tape player idea is funny because I feel the same way that you do. We are throwing our own statements back at each other. I enjoy these debates so I can learn other's opinions and so far I am still confident with with my opinions. I understand noone is going to change their opinion but keeping an open mind is important.
The biggest problem with evo ...[text shortened]... e. To really "believe" in evolution one has to blur the line between evidence and assumption.
http://www.wordmp3.com/dl.asp?Item=350049242213244879