Posts by hooberus

86

Is most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the WT, charlatanism?

by Disillusioned JW in

is most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the wt, charlatanism?.

https://www.fullmoon.nu/sources.bak/chapter%2010/part%202/gish%20exposed.html [which has an article called "creationism: bad science or immoral pseudoscience?

- (an expose of creationist dr. duane gish)"] says the following.. 'a look at the "scientific" creationist movement and a close examination of the tactics of a well-known and influential creationist will reveal that the creation "science" movement gains much of its strength through the use of distortion and scientifically unethical tactics.. .... with the facts explained and the lawsuits won, scientists declared victory and returned to their labs and offices.

hooberus

“Precambrian rabbit[edit]

a precambrian rabbit not disproving anything

J. B. S. Haldane famously stated that "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian" would disprove evolution — and this has been a talking point in philosophy of science for some time. This phrase is reported to be a rebuttal to the accusations that evolution is not falsifiable. However, the reality of disproving evolution in this manner is quite complicated. As science is based on an interplay between theory and evidence a single point of data is not enough to completely destroy a theory - just as much as an excellent theory can't win out against overwhelming data. Such a thing as finding fossilised rabbits wouldn't cause scientists to throw the theory of evolution out completely and immediately, so a little more explanation is needed.

First of all, it must be remembered that the fossil record is merely supporting evidence for evolution. This is contrary to the ideas put forward by creationists that state the gaps in the fossil record prove evolution to be false. If the fossil record simply did not exist it would make no difference to the validity of the theory of evolution — indeed, natural selection was initially formulated without the aid of fossil record, and subsequent DNA evidence can stand completely without it. The simple truth is that a single strange fossil would probably not make much difference. In practice, the evidence in the fossil record which supports evolution is so overwhelming that a single fossil would be regarded as curious certainly, but compared to the mountain of evidence in favor of evolution it would probably be regarded as an anomaly while more data was awaited. Imagining the fossil rabbit in the Precambrian as disproving all of natural selection would confuse the specifics of an individual evolutionary pathway with the falsification of the whole theory itself, as mentioned above.

However, the existence of entire groups of anomalous fossils would be a different thing — Haldane did say rabbits after all. Again, in practice an effort would initially be made to fit the new data into the existing framework — this is not cheating but simply the way science works. But still, in principle some quite major revisions to the theory may be needed to explain them. Such a situation would not immediately and conclusively prove a special creation over a naturalistic evolution, however, a key point that creation proponents ~~tend to~~ stubbornly overlook. Eventually, a new theory would develop to include these oddities, but this isn't necessarily a special young Earth creation as this assertion would also require supporting evidence, and lots of it. Perhaps this anomalous group was due to a now extinct second genesis, which would be a remarkable find, but unlikely to disprove evolution outright. Regardless of what it was, this new theory would explain both the evidence we have now and the hypothetical rabbit fossils and would indeed be science fully supported by evidence.”

The above is from:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Falsifiability_of_evolution

86

Is most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the WT, charlatanism?

by Disillusioned JW in

is most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the wt, charlatanism?.

https://www.fullmoon.nu/sources.bak/chapter%2010/part%202/gish%20exposed.html [which has an article called "creationism: bad science or immoral pseudoscience?

- (an expose of creationist dr. duane gish)"] says the following.. 'a look at the "scientific" creationist movement and a close examination of the tactics of a well-known and influential creationist will reveal that the creation "science" movement gains much of its strength through the use of distortion and scientifically unethical tactics.. .... with the facts explained and the lawsuits won, scientists declared victory and returned to their labs and offices.

hooberus

Interest

Even if the "Precambrian rabbits" turned out to be genuine, they would not instantly refute the theory of evolution, because that theory is a large package of ideas, including: that life on Earth has evolved over billions of years; that this evolution is driven by certain mechanisms; and that these mechanisms have produced a specific "family tree" that defines the relationships among species and the order in which they appeared. Hence, "Precambrian rabbits" would prove that there were one or more serious errors somewhere in this package, and the next task would be to identify those errors.[2] '

Interesting acknowledgment. I would also add that undoubted “fossil rabbits in the Precambrian” could also be explained by moving the date of rabbit evolution back in time. This is already done (on a less dramatic scale) when fossils are found in strata believed to be older than when it was previously believed that they evolved. This is sometimes called a “range extension.”

It would be a large time adjustment (within evolutionary geology) for rabbits, possibly requiring the assumption that all mammal, and reptile evolution had occurred much earlier than believed previously, so it could require significant, huge adjustment.

But evolutionary theory itself doesn’t exclude early fossils found from being complex, or being mammals,

86

Is most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the WT, charlatanism?

by Disillusioned JW in

is most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the wt, charlatanism?.

https://www.fullmoon.nu/sources.bak/chapter%2010/part%202/gish%20exposed.html [which has an article called "creationism: bad science or immoral pseudoscience?

- (an expose of creationist dr. duane gish)"] says the following.. 'a look at the "scientific" creationist movement and a close examination of the tactics of a well-known and influential creationist will reveal that the creation "science" movement gains much of its strength through the use of distortion and scientifically unethical tactics.. .... with the facts explained and the lawsuits won, scientists declared victory and returned to their labs and offices.

hooberus

From the article on page 4

Creation science is not falsifiable: An idea or hypothesis is generally not considered to be in the realm of science unless it can be potentially disproved with certain experiments, this is the concept of falsifiability in science.

Can you give examples of ways to disprove Evolution (to the satisfaction of the naturalistic community?)

86

Is most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the WT, charlatanism?

by Disillusioned JW in

is most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the wt, charlatanism?.

https://www.fullmoon.nu/sources.bak/chapter%2010/part%202/gish%20exposed.html [which has an article called "creationism: bad science or immoral pseudoscience?

- (an expose of creationist dr. duane gish)"] says the following.. 'a look at the "scientific" creationist movement and a close examination of the tactics of a well-known and influential creationist will reveal that the creation "science" movement gains much of its strength through the use of distortion and scientifically unethical tactics.. .... with the facts explained and the lawsuits won, scientists declared victory and returned to their labs and offices.

hooberus

. . . except I wouldn't use the word "guided'. I think evolution is unguided.

I agree with you on on that. A more clear way to say my definition could be:

“A version of the history of life on Earth in which it is claimed that all biological life that has ever existed came about solely by naturalistic processes (as opposed to intelligently guided).

86

Is most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the WT, charlatanism?

by Disillusioned JW in

is most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the wt, charlatanism?.

https://www.fullmoon.nu/sources.bak/chapter%2010/part%202/gish%20exposed.html [which has an article called "creationism: bad science or immoral pseudoscience?

- (an expose of creationist dr. duane gish)"] says the following.. 'a look at the "scientific" creationist movement and a close examination of the tactics of a well-known and influential creationist will reveal that the creation "science" movement gains much of its strength through the use of distortion and scientifically unethical tactics.. .... with the facts explained and the lawsuits won, scientists declared victory and returned to their labs and offices.

hooberus

One of my definitions of Evolution (in the context of debate) is:

“A version of the history of life on Earth in which it is claimed that all biological life that has ever existed came about solely by non-intelligently guided naturalistic processes.”

I think this accurately describes Evolution in the context of the Creation/Evolution debate.

TonusOH wrote:

I believe that in science, the working definition is "descent with modification."

“descent with modification” can be vague (even possibly compatible with creationism depending on the situation), and is just one of several evolutionary scenarios, so it’s not a definition that’s comprehensive.

Also, evolutionary theory allows for traits to to be received laterally and not just by descent.

86

Is most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the WT, charlatanism?

by Disillusioned JW in

is most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the wt, charlatanism?.

https://www.fullmoon.nu/sources.bak/chapter%2010/part%202/gish%20exposed.html [which has an article called "creationism: bad science or immoral pseudoscience?

- (an expose of creationist dr. duane gish)"] says the following.. 'a look at the "scientific" creationist movement and a close examination of the tactics of a well-known and influential creationist will reveal that the creation "science" movement gains much of its strength through the use of distortion and scientifically unethical tactics.. .... with the facts explained and the lawsuits won, scientists declared victory and returned to their labs and offices.

hooberus

So which type of evolution do you wish me to provide a definition for?

An overall definition, and a biological definition if you see that as distinct.

86

Is most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the WT, charlatanism?

by Disillusioned JW in

is most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the wt, charlatanism?.

https://www.fullmoon.nu/sources.bak/chapter%2010/part%202/gish%20exposed.html [which has an article called "creationism: bad science or immoral pseudoscience?

- (an expose of creationist dr. duane gish)"] says the following.. 'a look at the "scientific" creationist movement and a close examination of the tactics of a well-known and influential creationist will reveal that the creation "science" movement gains much of its strength through the use of distortion and scientifically unethical tactics.. .... with the facts explained and the lawsuits won, scientists declared victory and returned to their labs and offices.

hooberus

Which one do you wish me to define and would you accept me simply copying and pasting a definition of such that is in a book or online?

“Evolution” is defined in many different ways. Even some biological definitions are compatible with Biblical Creationism. Others are not, but are still too narrow, and don’t reflect the diversity of “Evolutionary theory” even within biology. So it’s necessary to define terms on this issue.

I notice you created a number to topics which promote creationism and intelligent design. I thus have no expectations of convincing you of evolution.

That’s fine, however your last post on the previous page made numerous claims against creation science being science. Should not evolutionary theory pass these tests in order to be considered science?

i understand if it may be a while before you are able to respond due to work.

86

Is most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the WT, charlatanism?

by Disillusioned JW in

is most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the wt, charlatanism?.

https://www.fullmoon.nu/sources.bak/chapter%2010/part%202/gish%20exposed.html [which has an article called "creationism: bad science or immoral pseudoscience?

- (an expose of creationist dr. duane gish)"] says the following.. 'a look at the "scientific" creationist movement and a close examination of the tactics of a well-known and influential creationist will reveal that the creation "science" movement gains much of its strength through the use of distortion and scientifically unethical tactics.. .... with the facts explained and the lawsuits won, scientists declared victory and returned to their labs and offices.

hooberus

I think I understand it good, for someone who is not scientist.

Could you please define “Evolution” (in the context of the Creation/Evolution debate?)

86

Is most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the WT, charlatanism?

by Disillusioned JW in

is most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the wt, charlatanism?.

https://www.fullmoon.nu/sources.bak/chapter%2010/part%202/gish%20exposed.html [which has an article called "creationism: bad science or immoral pseudoscience?

- (an expose of creationist dr. duane gish)"] says the following.. 'a look at the "scientific" creationist movement and a close examination of the tactics of a well-known and influential creationist will reveal that the creation "science" movement gains much of its strength through the use of distortion and scientifically unethical tactics.. .... with the facts explained and the lawsuits won, scientists declared victory and returned to their labs and offices.

hooberus

Disillusioned JW.

Regarding issues brought up in your last post:

How well do you understand Evolutionary theory?

Do you think that it is a testable, falsifiable theory?

46

Complexity, Evolutionists Biggest Problem

by Sea Breeze in

recently, some scientists modeled one of the simplest known cells - that of a bacteria.

it took an army of 128 computers running for 10 hours to process the data required in the 25 categories of molecules that are involved in this "simple cells'" life processes.

think about that for a moment - 128 computers running for 10 hours just to compute the data, not actually do it mind you; but just to model the known processes in one of the simplest known cells, which is many orders of magnitude simpler than a human cell.

hooberus

Basically you have two proponents: infinite regression of more complex creators or the regression to zero of less complex things that create more complex things through simple processes.

Why would the claim that ‘the origin of organized biological complexity is evidence for an intelligent designer,’ necessarily also require an infinite regression of more complex creators?

You have to add several extra assumptions to the arguments of intelligent design advocates in order to try to generate an infinite regression. Assumptions not found in the arguments.

*organized complexity defined as complexity composed of parts, such as a biological system composed of proteins.