[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
^
You are confounding philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism. There are plenty of theists who apply methodological naturalism.
[/quote]
You never seem to have time to answer the actual questions/discussions that we are having but seem to have plenty of time to introduce new points?
Why don’t you start by defining what you mean by methodological naturalism. I think that we might be talking past each other in this one.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
My understanding of ID and creationisms is that it basically disallows the study of ‘designing processes’ that is how a creator would design biology. It basically says a creator did it and that’s it. It’s a dead end. That’s the problem with interjecting the supernatural and not trying to figure out any of the processes. That’s why I asked about the fecundity or at least potential fecundity of creationism.
[/quote]
My understanding of your understanding is that yours is flawed!! Re: biology, creationists are fine with speciation and natural selection. We take issue with the idea that all life share a common ancestor and that all of the diversity in life is the result of unguided, natural processes.
Honestly, I find it very difficult to interpret your posts. E.g
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
it basically disallows the study of ‘designing processes’ that is how a creator would design biology.
[/quote]
What does that even mean?
I would have been concerned if you took the other side push.
Colt, you really need to learn how to use the quote tags!!
Bottom line is that it is your right to act like an ignorant, offensive jerk when it comes to defending evolution. I think we can all see that you can’t use rational arguments or logic to do it.
Just know that it makes your argument look incredibly weak when you employ one fallacy after another (and another and another…) and then refuse to interact with those who disagree with you.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
schmichael, what happens to your hypothesis if the bible isn’t the word of God?[/quote]
My hypothesis would be refuted.
[quote]colt44 wrote:
The followings is after testing what Mary found in the lab:
"
Spectroscopist John M. Asara of the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston then used technology developed to identify minute traces of proteins in tumors. He broke the collagen down into seven short fragments and analyzed the sequence of the 15 to 20 amino acids in each fragment.
Comparing those seven sequences to established genomes of modern species, they found three that matched chickens, one that matched a frog and another that matched a newt. The protein reacted to antibodies against chicken collagen.
The finding supports the theory that birds evolved from dinosaurs – an idea that until now has been largely based on comparing bone structures."
[/quote]
The finding does nothing of the sort. They are begging the question (that is, assuming that which must be proven).
Circular much!!!
[quote]schmichael wrote:
[quote]colt44 wrote:
The followings is after testing what Mary found in the lab:
"
Spectroscopist John M. Asara of the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston then used technology developed to identify minute traces of proteins in tumors. He broke the collagen down into seven short fragments and analyzed the sequence of the 15 to 20 amino acids in each fragment.
Comparing those seven sequences to established genomes of modern species, they found three that matched chickens, one that matched a frog and another that matched a newt. The protein reacted to antibodies against chicken collagen.
The finding supports the theory that birds evolved from dinosaurs – an idea that until now has been largely based on comparing bone structures."
[/quote]
The finding does nothing of the sort. They are begging the question (that is, assuming that which must be proven).
Circular much!!![/quote]
It’s not an assumption when it has a body of evidence in support of it.
[quote]schmichael wrote:
[quote]colt44 wrote:
The followings is after testing what Mary found in the lab:
"
Spectroscopist John M. Asara of the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston then used technology developed to identify minute traces of proteins in tumors. He broke the collagen down into seven short fragments and analyzed the sequence of the 15 to 20 amino acids in each fragment.
Comparing those seven sequences to established genomes of modern species, they found three that matched chickens, one that matched a frog and another that matched a newt. The protein reacted to antibodies against chicken collagen.
The finding supports the theory that birds evolved from dinosaurs – an idea that until now has been largely based on comparing bone structures."
[/quote]
The finding does nothing of the sort. They are begging the question (that is, assuming that which must be proven).
Circular much!!![/quote]
The very argument you used with respect to Mary Schweitzer, she actaully states that people like you have misinterpreted the work and skewed towards your ID beliefs. I do not understand how you can possibly live with yourself while trying to promote her discovery as support of creationism when she does no such thing!
Again, you are a Creationist, only looking for what will support your beliefs. And if for some reason, evidence found doesnt coincide with your beliefs, you try to twist and turn it into something else. Or should I say, the creationists you follow do that and you tag along.
You have presented nothing of value, please share with me evidence for ID. Where are your ID peer-reviewed studies? Where are your fossils? What genetic information do you have that everyonse else doesnt?
You are blinded, by the biased information you look at, step away from your creationist websites for a bit.
Ask question: Is schmichael a troll?
Research: Engage alleged troll.
Hypothesis: schmichael is a troll.
Data: 50 pages of being retarded in public.
Observation: [quote]Bottom line is that it is your right to act like an ignorant, offensive jerk when it comes to defending evolution. I think we can all see that you can’t use rational arguments or logic to do it.[/quote]
Conclusion: schmichael is a troll.
[quote]schmichael wrote:
My understanding of your understanding is that yours is flawed!! Re: biology, creationists are fine with speciation and natural selection. We take issue with the idea that all life share a common ancestor and that all of the diversity in life is the result of unguided, natural processes.
Honestly, I find it very difficult to interpret your posts. E.g
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
it basically disallows the study of ‘designing processes’ that is how a creator would design biology.
[/quote]
What does that even mean?[/quote]
What is your understanding of the auxiliary hypothesis of common ancestor to ToE and the evidence behind it?
And by that quote of mine, it means that ID or creationism is a dead end. You end up saying God did it and bring up some evidence to support that and then it ends there. There is not a description of how it was done through rational explanation. Again, I need to you to describe how creationism provides fecundity to go much further on that one. If you do that, then you show how my understanding of creationism is wrong.
And what do you mean by unguided natural processes. Could you define that for me. Like is gravity an unguided natural process?
[quote]colt44 wrote:
[quote]schmichael wrote:
[quote]colt44 wrote:
The followings is after testing what Mary found in the lab:
"
Spectroscopist John M. Asara of the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston then used technology developed to identify minute traces of proteins in tumors. He broke the collagen down into seven short fragments and analyzed the sequence of the 15 to 20 amino acids in each fragment.
Comparing those seven sequences to established genomes of modern species, they found three that matched chickens, one that matched a frog and another that matched a newt. The protein reacted to antibodies against chicken collagen.
The finding supports the theory that birds evolved from dinosaurs – an idea that until now has been largely based on comparing bone structures."
[/quote]
The finding does nothing of the sort. They are begging the question (that is, assuming that which must be proven).
Circular much!!![/quote]
The very argument you used with respect to Mary Schweitzer, she actaully states that people like you have misinterpreted the work and skewed towards your ID beliefs. I do not understand how you can possibly live with yourself while trying to promote her discovery as support of creationism when she does no such thing!
Again, you are a Creationist, only looking for what will support your beliefs. And if for some reason, evidence found doesnt coincide with your beliefs, you try to twist and turn it into something else. Or should I say, the creationists you follow do that and you tag along.
You have presented nothing of value, please share with me evidence for ID. Where are your ID peer-reviewed studies? Where are your fossils? What genetic information do you have that everyonse else doesnt?
You are blinded, by the biased information you look at, step away from your creationist websites for a bit. [/quote]
Yet another rant without any actual arguments.
You really don’t get that we both have the same evidence. We both have the same fossils and the same genetic data. The question is ‘which theory explains the data better’.
And, since no actual evidence is required with you, I can simply throw your statement right back at you. You are blinded, by the biased information you look at, step away from your evolutionist websites for a bit.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
And what do you mean by unguided natural processes. Could you define that for me. Like is gravity an unguided natural process?[/quote]
Most creationists seem to be of the opinion that evolution by natural selection is entirely random and that nothing is selected for or against. It really goes to show how shallow their knowledge of the subject is.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]schmichael wrote:
My understanding of your understanding is that yours is flawed!! Re: biology, creationists are fine with speciation and natural selection. We take issue with the idea that all life share a common ancestor and that all of the diversity in life is the result of unguided, natural processes.
Honestly, I find it very difficult to interpret your posts. E.g
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
it basically disallows the study of ‘designing processes’ that is how a creator would design biology.
[/quote]
What does that even mean?[/quote]
What is your understanding of the auxiliary hypothesis of common ancestor to ToE and the evidence behind it?
And by that quote of mine, it means that ID or creationism is a dead end. You end up saying God did it and bring up some evidence to support that and then it ends there. There is not a description of how it was done through rational explanation. Again, I need to you to describe how creationism provides fecundity to go much further on that one. If you do that, then you show how my understanding of creationism is wrong.
And what do you mean by unguided natural processes. Could you define that for me. Like is gravity an unguided natural process?[/quote]
Seriously Dude, stop answering a question with a question.
We don’t simply say “God did it”. As I said, creationists are fine with speciation and natural selection.
Yes, gravity is an unguided natural process. So is natural selection and mutation.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
If the bible had better supporting evidence it would still have to compete with all the other God hypotheses that exist on Earth. The default position is not believing any of them until supporting evidence is provided.
[/quote]
This is funny. So 90+% of the world’s population believe in a God of some sort and you think the default should be unbelief?
Isn’t the better explanation that there is a God but some of the stories told have been mixed up?
Funny how you guys like to appeal to majority opinion until it doesn’t work for you.
What’s that i hear? More special pleading…
[quote]schmichael wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
If the bible had better supporting evidence it would still have to compete with all the other God hypotheses that exist on Earth. The default position is not believing any of them until supporting evidence is provided.
[/quote]
This is funny. So 90+% of the world’s population believe in a God of some sort and you think the default should be unbelief?
Isn’t the better explanation that there is a God but some of the stories told have been mixed up?
Funny how you guys like to appeal to majority opinion until it doesn’t work for you.
What’s that i hear? More special pleading…[/quote]
Yes, until proper evidence is observed and tested, the default position should be nonbelief.
Also, schmichael, when people have studied something in depth their entire adult lives, it’s more than an opinion.
It’s more like a conduit for interpretation of evidence that is open to scrutiny and subject to change. So I wouldn’t call what an expert has to say on their specific subject, just an opinion.
Me: “My doctor says that the tests show I have cancer.”
Creationist: “Oh you know how doctors are, always shoving their opinion in people’s faces.”
I hope that sounded as stupid as I imagined.
Edit: Wanted to add at the end there.
I see. So the pope’s pontifications are more than opinion? What about the 70 year old muslim cleric? or my 65 year old pastor…
Wait for it. Here comes more special pleading
[quote]schmichael wrote:
I see. So the pope’s pontifications are more than opinion? What about the 70 year old muslim cleric? or my 65 year old pastor…
Wait for it. Here comes more special pleading[/quote]
You’re so dumb it’s painful to interact with you.
Scientist =/= pope. This “=/=” means not equal. And being an “expert” of the unknowable is no expert at all. Stop being so black and white.
[quote]schmichael wrote:
So please, enlighten me Joe (or Matt or anyine else). How does Lenski’s long term experiment prove that evolution is true?[/quote]
I hate to say it, but this statement does show a fundamental misunderstanding of how scientific studies are done and what the specific purpose of Lenski’s experiment is. Most people without advanced education (and some that do) in the hard sciences have the same problem, whether they subscribe to the ToE or not. I have outlined how scientific studies are done in other threads, such as that global warming swindle one, and Fletch did a good job of describing scientific methodology in the first Bill Nye thread, and I have also done so elsewhere, so I will not go into too much detail about scientific methodology here.
I am not trying to sound condescending here, either, all of my degrees are in the fields of mathematics and physics, so all of my knowledge of biology comes from a two semester intro to biology sequence that I was required to take in undergrad about 20 years ago that I barely paid attention in and the ToE only comprised 3 chapters of the sequence at that. This means that I know next to nothing about the field of biology in general and even less about the ToE. In fact, until this post I have not said one word in this thread on the ToE. All of my posts have regarded misconceptions people have regarding number theory, but since you mentioned me personally, which I didn’t realize right away, I thought I would look into it and conferred with my fiance who, while not an evolutionary biologist still holds a PhD in microbiology, and she gave me quite a bit of information.
First, evolution is a very broad field and has many components to it and it, like any scientific theory, takes a LOT of evidence from multiple experiments to be considered a theory, so you will not find a single study that encompasses the entirety of evolutionary theory and states “This one study proves all of evolutionary theory to be true.” All scientific theories evolve (no pun intended) as more information is discovered, and evolution is no different.
Lenski’s experiment was started with the goals of observing how the rates of evolutionary mutations change over time, and to see if those adaptations could be reproduced in separate population groups under the same conditions, and his experiments have indeed shown that. In fact, here is one of the many articles he has had published on his experiment:
The point of his experiment was not to demonstrate speciation, which is the splitting of a species into separate, distinct species. There is already a lot of other studies that have shown this phenomenon occur, both naturally and artificially. Here is just one of them:
http://www.lifesci.ucsb.edu/eemb/faculty/rice/publications/pdf/25.pdf
It is also not the point of Lenski’s experiment to prove common descent, there are plenty of other researchers working on that, usually geneticists studying common genes found in the various species throughout history, as well as similar and vestigial traits in certain species. Here is one such study that was done on common ancestry:
I don’t know enough about genetics and the field of biology as a whole to comment on the validity of the experiments, but my fiance and every credible biologist that I know is convinced, and I have not seen any credible scientific evidence to dispute the field of genetics.
My point, in case you missed it, is that there is no one study or experiment that one can point to and say: “this one proves evolution incontrovertibly” or “This one disproves evolution incontrovertibly” because it takes so many studies and repetitions of studies to even begin to say with any degree of certainty that a phenomenon is occurring or not occurring. There is enough evidence of evolution, as well as a lack of scientific evidence to disprove evolution, to say that yes, evolution does occur. Certain parts of the broad field of evolution may be, and by may I mean certainly are, wrong, but that is why we continue to experiment, to discover the truth and eventually do something useful and beneficial to society with the knowledge we scientists discover, like all the fancy medical advancements that have come from the study of genetics.