toldailytopic "Evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life"

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I'm not necessarily requiring you to accept the view of the consensus, but if we are going to use science as the tool, then the starting point really should be an established theory, if there is one.

There is no such thing as an "established theory." It's a contradiction in terms.

There is no falsifiable theory of creation.

Of course there is.

You may wish to consider the load of cognitive dissonance you place on yourself by that. Something being shown to be impossible is a very high standard to set, and lies dangerously close to the impossibility of proving that Russell's Teapot doesn't exist and isn't orbiting the sun somewhere out there. A more workable justification for most people I think is to reject beliefs that have a very low probability.

It works just fine.

It's not impossible that geology involves hydroplates, but hydroplates don't explain the appearance of the Himalayas.

Did you spend any time researching what Hydroplate says about the Himalayas?

Well it's more a matter of worldview I think. I claimed earlier that Occam's Razor is a major reason for the respect in which science is held. If that's right, then I believe one can hold a more 'respectable' world view by eliminating untestable assumptions. Compared with a christian, I think I have quite a short list of untestable assumptions:

Stuu's assumptions:
1. Stuu exists (I have to assume that because I can't independently demonstrate it)
2. The universe I observe is not an illusion

A. Christian's assumptions:
1. A. Christian exists
2. The observed universe is not an illusion
3. A creator with a will exists
4. The creator actively carries out its will, including occasional suspension of 2.

That's not a fair or rational way to approach the difference between our ideas sets. For every assumption we make that you disagree with, that is an assumption that you also hold, just the opposite view. So we assume a Creator. You disagree, which means you assume no Creator.

This makes counting assumptions a senseless task, unless you know of one that does not have a negation.

What we have to do is compare ideas, the assertion against its negation. Ie, in a universe that has initial conditions so dramatically ideal to accommodate life, which is the more reasonable assumption: A Creator, or no Creator?

Feel free to criticise my list if you wish. I am sure it does not possess the robustness of the work of proper philosophers, who apparently are still confused about the sound of one hand clapping, or something.

:chuckle:

The lists can be as long as they like, but they will always be equal in number for both sides.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
1987: 4
1991: 1
1995: 0
1999: 2
2003: 2
2007: 0
2011: 2
2015: 5
2019: 2

NZ have scored seven in four games (1.75 per game), Australia 6/4 (1.5), France and South Africa 2/3 and England 1/3.
 

Stuu

New member
There is no such thing as an "established theory." It's a contradiction in terms.
That just has to be a denial of the situation. Whether it is right or not, evolution by natural selection is the working explanation 'established' for virtually 100% of biologists. If not 100%, then 99.9%. I would call that established, and I'm curious to know why you wouldn't.
Of course there is.
One that hasn't already been falsified?
Did you spend any time researching what Hydroplate says about the Himalayas?
Yes, I remember doing a reasonable amount of reading. Of course this could be an opportunity for you to put the record straight regarding a hydroplate model for what, again 100% or at least 99.9% of, geologists might call a 'relatively recent' tectonic collision in the formation of the Himalayas.

Stuu's assumptions:
1. Stuu exists (I have to assume that because I can't independently demonstrate it)
2. The universe I observe is not an illusion

A. Christian's assumptions:
1. A. Christian exists
2. The observed universe is not an illusion
3. A creator with a will exists
4. The creator actively carries out its will, including occasional suspension of 2.

That's not a fair or rational way to approach the difference between our ideas sets. For every assumption we make that you disagree with, that is an assumption that you also hold, just the opposite view. So we assume a Creator. You disagree, which means you assume no Creator.
I don't assume there is no creator. I believe all god hypotheses are testable, so it does not have to be an assumption. Of course I conclude there is nothing like the Judeo-christian god on the basis of the evidence presented for it, but I don't make it a 'given' that there isn't one, and it is always open to further (or any:)) unambiguous evidence.

But I maintain that Judeo-christian believers must assume the existence of their god because there is no unambiguous reason in scripture or observation to believe it is real. Maybe you believe your god is falsifiable, in which case I would accept you removing it from the list of your assumptions. But I would then be very interested to know the falsifiability criteria.

On the other hand, given the ambiguous claims made for the Judeo-christian god (can you see it, hear it etc? scripture gives contradictory claims) then it really has to be an assumption, and I think most christians would use the word faith as a proxy for assumption.
What we have to do is compare ideas, the assertion against its negation. Ie, in a universe that has initial conditions so dramatically ideal to accommodate life, which is the more reasonable assumption: A Creator, or no Creator?
As Douglas Adams put it, that would be like having a puddle surprised at how well it fits its hole.

Stuart
 

Stuu

New member
1987: 4
1991: 1
1995: 0
1999: 2
2003: 2
2007: 0
2011: 2
2015: 5
2019: 2

NZ have scored seven in four games (1.75 per game), Australia 6/4 (1.5), France and South Africa 2/3 and England 1/3.
That's a much better ranking system for world rugby.

Stuart
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I don't assume there is no creator.

Then don't put its negation on us.

For the reason I gave, counting assumptions is a useless measure of the veracity of a worldview.

Scripture gives contradictory claims.

Over the assumption of His existence?
 
Last edited:

Stuu

New member
For the reason I gave, counting assumptions is a useless measure of the veracity of a worldview.
If you have to assume less, then according to the principle of Occam's Razor, the quality of the information improves.

Stuu: Scripture gives contradictory claims.
Over the assumption of His existence?
Contradictory claims regarding whether the god in question can be observed/seen/heard etc.
Genesis 12:7, Genesis 17:1, Genesis 18:1, Exodus 6:3, Acts 7:2, Genesis 26:2, Genesis 26:24, Exodus 6:3, Genesis 32:30, Genesis 35:9, Genesis 48:3, Exodus 6:3, Exodus 3:16, Exodus 4:5, Exodus 33:11, Numbers 12:7-1, Deuteronomy 34:10, Exodus 33:23, Exodus 24:9-11, Numbers 14:14, Deuteronomy 5:4, Baruch 3:38, Ezekiel 20:35, Judges 13:22-24, 1 Kings 22:19, Job 42:5, Psalm 63:2, Isaiah 6:1-2, Ezekiel 1:27-28, Amos 7:7, Amos 9:1, Habakkuk 3:3-5, Matthew 18:9, and John 14:9 say it is possible to see or hear this god.

Exodus 33:20, John 1:18, 1 John 4:12, John 5:37, John 6:46, Colossians 1:15, 1 Timothy 1:17, 1 Timothy 6:16 say you can't see this god, or worse, if you do you will die.

Makes the collection of empirical evidence somewhat hazardous.

Stuart
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
If you have to assume less, then according to the principle of Occam's Razor, the quality of the information improves.
This would be a more sensible description of what it seems you're thinking.

It is valid to assess the content of our assumptions, but simply counting them is not. As I showed, the number can always be made equal.

It is possible to see or hear this god ... you can't see this god, or worse, if you do you will die.
Have you heard of the concept of the Trinity?

Makes the collection of empirical evidence somewhat hazardous.
Are we treating this as an assumption, or something that needs to be falsifiable?
 

Stuu

New member
This would be a more sensible description of what it seems you're thinking. It is valid to assess the content of our assumptions, but simply counting them is not. As I showed, the number can always be made equal..
My first attempts gave me lists of assumptions for everyone that were long, and I realised that wasn't quite the point I had in mind; indeed as you say it's not the number but the nature of the assumptions that is the proper intent of it.
Have you heard of the concept of the Trinity?
Shhh! Good grief, are you trying to start a TOL war?!

I'll happily concede the point for the sake of peace in our time.
Are we treating this as an assumption, or something that needs to be falsifiable?
Falsification:
1.Stare directly at the Judeo-christian god.
2. Check for pulse. Presence of pulse falsifies Exodus 33:20.

Stuart
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Neither creation nor evolution are falsifiable scientific theories. Nor can they be. They are both philosophies about the origin of life.


Baloney. Both creation and evolution have the same evidence to use to explain their understanding of that evidence.

And, while creationists are willing to deal directly with the evidence, evolutionists tell fanciful stories that go WELL BEYOND what the evidence can actually say.

That the originally created kinds have "changed" and diverged is NOT a problem for creationists. Though evolutionists will repeat, ad nauseam, that somehow it is.

The theory of evolution came about because of the evidence, just like any other scientific theory.

:doh:

That it doesn't fit in with your particular set of beliefs matters not one thing.
 

Right Divider

Body part
The theory of evolution came about because of the evidence, just like any other scientific theory.

:doh:

That it doesn't fit in with your particular set of beliefs matters not one thing.
:juggle:

The evidence does NOT support the "theory" that all life on earth has descended from a single universal common ancestor.

So that "theory" most definitely did NOT come "from the evidence".
 

7djengo7

New member
I will pray for you.
I am sure you mean well, but if it is all the same then I would prefer you not do that.

You pretend not to believe God exists, yet you admit believing that prayer to God exists.

For I have intentionally blasphemed without repenting

You pretend not to believe God exists, yet you admit believing that blasphemy against God exists.

for the purpose of avoiding ending up in the Judeo-christian heaven, which I am told involves an eternity, a fate I am very keen to avoid. Of course I don't believe there really is such a state,

You pretend not to believe Heaven exists, yet you admit believing that avoiding Heaven exists.

and you may think me unlikely to qualify in any case,

Assuming that, by "qualify", you mean "be worthy"--of course, I do not hesitate to say that you, indeed, absolutely do not qualify, just as much as I, also, absolutely do not qualify, nor does anybody else qualify.

What about you, though? Do you think you are worthy of "ending up in the Judeo-christian heaven"?

but I want to make sure I avoid it

You want to make sure you avoid that in the existence of which you pretend not to believe, eh?

and so if you would refrain from accidentally succeeding in revoking my intentional unpardonable sin I would be most grateful.

You pretend to not believe God exists, yet you admit believing you have committed an unpardonable sin against Him?

I will continue to pray for you, Stuart.
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
:juggle:

The evidence does NOT support the "theory" that all life on earth has descended from a single universal common ancestor.

So that "theory" most definitely did NOT come "from the evidence".

You still seem to be confused about what the theory of evolution actually is. Yes, the evidence supports it just as the evidence supports there being an old earth and universe otherwise these theories wouldn't be about. That's how the scientific method works. It doesn't start with a religious belief that denies any evidence that contradicts it.
 

ok doser

Well-known member
:juggle:

The evidence does NOT support the "theory" that all life on earth has descended from a single universal common ancestor.

So that "theory" most definitely did NOT come "from the evidence".

artie talks about "the evidence" as if he knows what it is, how it works in supporting the claim of evolution, as if he understands it

he doesn't

he's merely taking it at face value, as most people do, that the "experts" know what they're talking about

he's parroting what he's heard

when pressed, all he can say is that you've been told, or give you a wiki link

:think:

 

Right Divider

Body part
You still seem to be confused about what the theory of evolution actually is.
You evolutionists just use that tactic over and over again. No, I do understand "what the theory is about".

Yes, the evidence supports it just as the evidence supports there being an old earth and universe otherwise these theories wouldn't be about. That's how the scientific method works. It doesn't start with a religious belief that denies any evidence that contradicts it.
:rotfl:

Please give us the "scientific method" used to determine how old rocks are.
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
You evolutionists just use that tactic over and over again. No, I do understand "what the theory is about".


:rotfl:

Please give us the "scientific method" used to determine how old rocks are.

If you understood it you wouldn't keep making the same mistake. The scientific method works as the following in basic terms. Collect and analyze data, formulate testable theories around the evidence. In other words, the complete opposite to "creationist science" that starts with a determined, unshakable conclusion and tries to shoehorn data to tie in with it.

:rain:
 

Right Divider

Body part
If you understood it you wouldn't keep making the same mistake. The scientific method works as the following in basic terms. Collect and analyze data, formulate testable theories around the evidence. In other words, the complete opposite to "creationist science" that starts with a determined, unshakable conclusion and tries to shoehorn data to tie in with it.

:rain:
It's funny how you keep running back to this silly stuff.

Nobody starts with a blank page and just evidence.

Everyone has the SAME evidence, but look at it differently depending on their assumptions about the nature of things.

There is NO unequivocal and unambiguous evidence that all life on earth has descended from a universal single common ancestor.

It was NOT pristine beautiful evidence ALONE that led to that idea.
 
Top