Evolution is fact Bias - corrected post

by Decidedly_Unsure 22 Replies latest jw friends

rem

Dw,
Do you like Decidedly's answer because it's true and fits all of the facts, or do you like it because it makes you feel good?
Has Decidedly provided any evidence for his theory, such as who this creator is? A useful theory has to be falsifiable. Is this theory falsifiable?
Anyone can make a plausible sounding theory that only takes into account a subset of the entire range of evidence. This is why it's easy for laymen to get off track - we don't know all the minutia, just the broad outlines.
Now I'm not saying that Decidedly's idea is certainly wrong (there are a lot of "could be" stories), but there is certainly no way of providing evidence for that idea or even falsifying it. Also, the fact that it only addresses a narrow subset of the data instead of the whole range of evidence makes it almost impossible to be correct.
We can't go by what feels right (otherwise I'd still be a creationist). We should go by what has facts and evidence to back the point.
rem
"We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain
Moxy

i think this a perfectly valid argument. the analogy with OOP is stretched a bit but is basically sound. any creationist that wants to reconcile the genetic evidence with special creation will pretty much have to follow this route, that god creates in such a way that resembles evolution. it is left to the individual to decide what sounds most likely.
however.
the basic problem with this argument for most people is that it DOES attribute human qualities to the Creator. humans cut-and-paste code from previous programs because they know that if they try and write it out anew each time, custom built for each specific use, they will almost certainly make mistakes and will definitely take longer. better to build a general code library that can do several things and can be tested thoroughly for bugs. it is this aspect of allowing for human error and limitations that makes this argument seem unlikely.
mox
Farkel

: Consider another posible viewpoint. It's interesting that JanH should menton pseudocode. Perhaps he has been exposed to some programming languages.
Besides having a Master's Degree in (I think) religious history, Jan is a computer programmer. In fact he wrote a book on the subject called the "Visual Basic Fat FAQ." I have a copy of that book. That's one reason why he's so logical.
I am also a computer programmer with twenty years experience in the field. As such, I can say that your argument is in fact a statement that God is either 1) a very sloppy programmer, or 2) a very lazy programmer.
A God who is a good programmer could create a "class module" which contained all the things that were common to all living creatures, containing all the "properties, methods and events" shared by living creatures. For each new living creature he wanted to create he could take that original "class module" and add those "properties, methods and events" that were unique only to that creature and "save" that "class" under a different "name." Only a sloppy programmer would leave useless code in a module and "add" relevant code. Such code is hard to read and difficult to maintain.
So then, in your analogy God is either incompetent or lazy. Which is it?
Farkel
"When in doubt, duck!"
ianao

Both sides of this debate amount out to resting "faith" on ones perceptions, whether that be Abiogenesis or Creation. Why can't both sides just admit that they don't know and then get on with their lives!?
Oh wait! That's right!
The "scientists" have their personal egos to protect, and the "creationists" have their "collective-ego" to protect.
I say:
Who gives a crap!!!!.
D wiltshire

Rem,
Do you like Decidedly's answer because it's true and fits all of the facts, or do you like it because it makes you feel good?
I like it (emotion) because it is Plausible.
I don't pin my hopes on it being true, to me it's just a very plausible answers that should not be dismissed out of hand.
If there is stong unbiased information to refute it well and good.
Has Decidedly provided any evidence for his theory, such as who this creator is? A useful theory has to be falsifiable. Is this theory falsifiable?
Doesn't need to provide evidence for theory he was just proposing an alternate conclution from the now concider facts of useless DNA(is it a proven fact that it is really Junk DNA?)(Maybe, but who really knows for sure)(Do scientist really understand everything about the DNA code to make that statement with absolute certainty?)
Anyone can make a plausible sounding theory that only takes into account a subset of the entire range of evidence. This is why it's easy for laymen to get off track - we don't know all the minutia, just the broad outlines.
Are those who question theories you hold as true always off track?
Sound a little like "confirmation-itus Bias" to me.
Now I'm not saying that Decidedly's idea is certainly wrong (there are a lot of "could be" stories), but there is certainly no way of providing evidence for that idea or even falsifying it. Also, the fact that it only addresses a narrow subset of the data instead of the whole range of evidence makes it almost impossible to be correct.
So your not saying Decidely's idea is wrong,... just almost impossibly to be right. Wow that's a real confusing statement.
Moxy,
the basic problem with this argument for most people is that it DOES attribute human qualities to the Creator.
I guess it does, many beleive that Man was created in God's image.
If someone lived a trillion X longer than you, and had a billion X more reasoning ability would he come to the same conclusions as you?
Moxy

the basic problem with this argument for most people is that it DOES attribute human qualities to the Creator.
I guess it does, many beleive that Man was created in God's image.
i think you had to read the entire paragraph (and farkel's post too) to see which 'human qualities' i was refering to.
rem

Dw,
Any theory is "off track" if it doesn't take into account the whole range of evidence. I'm not sure how you can call that confirmation bias.
Perhaps you could do some research on why scientists feel there is "junk code" in DNA.
I'm not sure why we seem to have trouble communicating. When I say that I can't say for certain something is wrong, but it most probably is, that's exactly what I mean. I can't say for a certainty that Invisible Pink Unicorns didn't creat you and me, but taking into account all of the evidence we have, that conclusion is most probably wrong.
I'm not sure why you seem to find "contradictions" in my writings or find my statements confusing. Perhaps you are not really reading them, but are skimming them and responding to what you THINK I'm saying.
rem
"We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain
Abaddon

Very nice arguement Decidely. Clever.
However;
1/ It doesn't explain why the program 'whale' would have the object 'rear legs' from the class 'limbs'. Sorry. If I've missed something, please clarify, and I think it's an ingenious arguement to run up the flag pole, but I ain't saluting as it doesn't explain entire chunks of redundant code.
2/ It's also akin to suggesting that god uses Microsoft FrontPage.
I really don't know that much about programming. I was getting into BASIC on the BBC computer, back in, oh, '85, '86, and decided that I didn't want to be a computer programmer. BIG MISTAKE.
But reasons why I now don't have a yacht aside, I do know a little HTML.
Now, this is a very good example (I think) for DNA comparisons. You can have nice clean HTML code, a thing of beauty, where there is not a single keystroke out of place.
You can also have HTML code which is created by a WYSIWYG HTML editor, or created by an inexperienced programmer... this varies in quality. Some programs really suck... thus the FrontPage comparison. It tends to result in a lot of extra code that does nothing, functionally speaking. Sometimes it can even do dumb stuff you didn't intend... nothing quite as dramatic as putting hind legs on a whale, but you get my idea, I'm sure.
3/ It is playing fast and loose with the attributed qualities of god. One minute he's perfect, the next minute he's a sloppy programmer. One minute he's all-powerful, the next he introduces time-saving measures. That might be logically cohesive to you, but to me, well, sorry, it's deeply silly.
D wiltshire; D, please take this the right way. We have discussed stuff extensively and I have warm feelings towards you (nothing sexy, don't worry ). Whenver someone makes a good counter arguement against evolution, you almost trip over your own feet in your eagerness to accept it. I don't know if you read what I posted on the other evolution thread (the one started by JanH) on initiating mindsets, but I'd be interested in your thoughts on it.
Remember, many of us believed, and now don't, and it's not coz we are angry or sulking, it's coz we rebuilt our paradigms from the ground up. If you have done so, can honestly say you have started from a null hypothosis and worked your way up, great, we just have different opinions. But each time there is something that allows you to bolster your belief in god, you grab it like a drowning man. I might be reading you wrong, it might be none of my business, but you are posting in a place where many people can identify and support you if you are at the crossroads the hair on the back of my neck tells me you are at. As I say, I hope you take this the right way, I honestly couldn't care less if you end up a theist or an atheist as long as you are happy, maybe I am misreading you or maybe you feel it is private. But my E-Mail's in my profile if you feel exposed taling about this issue in a public forum. All the best.
ianao; obviously lots of people do give a crap! And maybe some people like talking about stuff like this instead of, what, sport. I think sport sucks, for example, but you don't have to agree!! Isn't freedom great!? If ya don't like it, don't read it!!
People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...
Decidedly_Unsure

Quote
==================
i think this a perfectly valid argument. the analogy with OOP is stretched a
bit but is basically sound.
==================
I agree that it is merely an analogy but the more I think about the so-called
"junk DNA" in this light, the less I see it as something that
"disproves" creation. I'm merely viewing these analogies as "possible" even
plausible explanations. Isn't that what evolutionists do sometimes?
Perhaps we can stretch the analogy even a bit more!
Quote
==============================
any creationist that wants to reconcile the
genetic evidence with special creation will pretty much have to follow this
route, that god creates in such a way that resembles evolution. it is left to
the individual to decide what sounds most likely.
======================
Creation through evolution Sounds like the various types of inheritance used
in software engineering:
( The foll. stretch is obviously highly speculative and imaginative and
lengthy! but is really my thinking aloud as to possible correlation between
what we deem productive software engineering design methods and
creation-evolution -genetic code) :
***********
INHERITANCE TYPES
Quote
==================
i think this a perfectly valid argument. the analogy with OOP is stretched a
bit but is basically sound.
==================
I agree that it is merely an analogy but the more I think about the so-called
"junk DNA" in this light, the less I see it as something that
"disproves" creation. I'm merely viewing these analogies as "possible" even
plausible explanations. Isn't that what evolutionists do sometimes?
Perhaps we can stretch the analogy even a bit more!
Quote
==============================
any creationist that wants to reconcile the
genetic evidence with special creation will pretty much have to follow this
route, that god creates in such a way that resembles evolution. it is left to
the individual to decide what sounds most likely.
======================
Creation through evolution Sounds like the various types of inheritance used
in software engineering:
( The foll. stretch is obviously highly speculative and imaginative and
lengthy! but is really my thinking aloud as to possible correlation between
what we deem productive software engineering design methods and
creation-evolution -genetic code) :
***********
INHERITANCE TYPES
There are a number of variations of inheritance in object- oriented languages;
these include dynamic, selective or partial inheritance and monotonic
inheritance.
Class inheritance is essentially a static form of inheritance. New classes
inherit properties when they are defined rather than at run time. Once a class
has been defined, the properties of its instances, that is the instance
variables and methods are determined for all time.
&&Note This could relate to original creation, the basic life form templates.
Dynamic inheritance is the mechanism that allows objects to alter their
behaviour in the course of normal interaction with other objects. there are
two forms of dynamic inheritance, part and scope inheritance.
&& Note After the creator defined the essential classes (templates), the
objects (bird, fish etc) would be "instantiated" i.e. born (programmers run
the app.)
The foll. occur in real systems and can be likened to what you call
evolution??
Part inheritance occurs when an object changes its behaviour by accepting new
parts from other objects. Part inheritance is nothing more than an exchange of
values between objects. An object may dynamically inherit new instance
variables and methods from other objects.
Scope inheritance involves cases where the object's behaviour is determined in
part by the environment or its acquaintances. When changes in the environment
occur, the behaviour of the object changes. An example is where we have a
paragraph in a document that inherits its font and style from an enclosing
environment. If the paragraph is moved to a footnote, new properties will be
inherited.
&& Note, while all this could be termed evolutionary behavior, the
capabilities to interact in such manner was "programmed" before runtime i.e.
genetically engineered by an intelligent creator!?
**********************
While all of the above is highly speculative, I'd love to have the time to
investigate the concept further. Does our genetic material have embedded
in it any or all of the above capabilities?
I have no knowledge of genetics and really should before venturing into a
discussion such as this.
Thanks to WT time pressures I can't find time right now!
Supporting or opposing viewpoints - deeply appreciated.
Decidely_Unsure
ianao

Abaddon:
obviously lots of people do give a crap! And maybe some people like talking about stuff like this instead of, what, sport. I think sport sucks, for example, but you don't have to agree!! Isn't freedom great!? If ya don't like it, don't read it!!
I concur. As I said: *I* say "Who gives a crap!!!". Meaning: *I* Don't.
Well, I really do. Otherwise, I wouldn't have said anything. *BUT*...
The whole debate seems pointless when the holier than thou's could be doing something useful like... Feeding the homeless... while the smarter than thou's could be finding a way to... say ... Replinish/repair the OZONE layer.
That would be much better than:
"You are wrong and an ignoramous baffoon!!!"
-and-
"You's uh wrong and you gonna burn like the divil ya are!!! Get em' daddy get em'!!!"

Evolution is fact Bias - corrected post

Share this