hooberus

Joined

• started 119 topics
• posted 2,517 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by hooberus

• 
  36

  The question`s GOD beleiver / Creationists ignore or don`t / won`t / can`t answer ?

  by smiddy3 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the common thread of beleivers / creationists of a god creating life is design .. and if something / anything is designed it must have a designer ?.

  however this reasoning is discarded when talking about the existence of god.. and if such a being as god somehow existed without a designer why not all forms of life itself as existing on earth ?.

  coming into existence without a designer ?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  “Complex” in the context of a camera or eye is referring to a functional system composed of component parts (like a car transmission).

  Where in the design argument is it required that a designer God must himself also be to be composed of parts?
  
• 
  36

  The question`s GOD beleiver / Creationists ignore or don`t / won`t / can`t answer ?

  by smiddy3 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the common thread of beleivers / creationists of a god creating life is design .. and if something / anything is designed it must have a designer ?.

  however this reasoning is discarded when talking about the existence of god.. and if such a being as god somehow existed without a designer why not all forms of life itself as existing on earth ?.

  coming into existence without a designer ?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  
  

  And if you do have a satisfactory answer please reply ?

  smiddy3

  Is there anything in the following statement that requires a designer God to have their own designer?

  ”An intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of biological life from non-life.”
• 
  86

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

  by Disillusioned JW in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  From the bottom post on page 4.

  The act of creation as defined in creation science is not falsifiable because no testable bounds can be imposed on the creator. In creation science, the creator is defined as limitless, with the capacity to create (or not), through fiat alone, infinite universes, not just one, and endow each one with its own unique, unimaginable and incomparable character. It is impossible to disprove a claim when that claim as defined encompasses every conceivable contingency.

  How does a person test ‘natural selection’? ReMine documents how natural selection is composed of numerous mechanisms operating discordantly over a complex “fitness terrain”. Making the theory untestable.

  Also countless (trillions) of universes are now another part of the evolutionary theory smorgasbord. These are conjured up to try to provide a rescue device for mathematical probabilities that point to the universe or origin of life being designed. Other universes aren’t testable, so it’s not a scientific explanation according to evolutionists criteria thst they try to apply to creation.

  https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator-the-multiverse-theory
• 
  86

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

  by Disillusioned JW in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  So we see that evolutionary theory is flexible enough to accommodate “Precambrian rabbits”.
• 
  86

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

  by Disillusioned JW in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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.