[quote]pushharder wrote:
Actually Matty, even though I referenced you in those posts I had others in mind who weren’t so dogmatically committed to their position.
(See…you and I are a lot alike…)[/quote]
I’m sure we would get along fine in person.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Sorry push, creation science is not science…
[/quote]
Saying this over and over and over again is an effective tool, as Karl Marx himself expressed, but it doesn’t establish truth.
[/quote]
If you understood that “creation science” doesn’t fit within the bounds of science the first I said it, I wouldn’t have to keep repeating myself, would I?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
“As my old professor Carl Sagan said, ‘When you’re in love, you want to tell the world.’”
No one said Carl Sagan is an authority, and at best if Carl Sagan were still alive, he would say something along the lines “I’m an expert in _______, not an authority”
That’s enough for me. Thanks push.[/quote]
Carl Sagan was quoted by Bill Nye, the Sagan Luvin Guy, Matty. The crev.info website was quoting Sir Bill. You DO realize that, right?
[/quote]
Do you see the “argument from authority” part? They were trying to say that by Nye mentioning Sagan, he was presenting an argument from authority and he wasn’t. Your source needs to improve it’s reading comprehension.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
“As my old professor Carl Sagan said, ‘When you’re in love, you want to tell the world.’”
No one said Carl Sagan is an authority, and at best if Carl Sagan were still alive, he would say something along the lines “I’m an expert in _______, not an authority”
That’s enough for me. Thanks push.[/quote]
Carl Sagan was quoted by Bill Nye, the Sagan Luvin Guy, Matty. The crev.info website was quoting Sir Bill. You DO realize that, right?
[/quote]
Oh wait I see you edited out the “argument from authority” part that I had in my original post.
Shame push, shame.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:<<< First, thank you for speaking more plainly. I hope that you don’t feel that you had to sacrifice content in order to do so. [/quote]Your welcome and no. I do not think you are a moron Matty. I also have no desire for us not to get along. I will never personally insult or yell at you. Watch.[quote]MattyG35 wrote:<<< Just because the how(or whatever the question is) is presently unknown doesn’t give anybody a reason to say that it must be God. I’m not a mechanic, I don’t understand how an engine works, but I sure as shit know that somehow it works and I can drive places. Just because I don’t know how it works, doesn’t mean that it can’t function. And just because I don’t know who or what made it, doesn’t mean that it was some God figure. I believe the saying is, absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence. >>>[/quote]Really? You don’t know who or what made it? This misses the point while making it. You KNOW somebody designed AND built that car. Tell me you don’t. I dare ya. Yet biology, which is just vaaaaastly more complex AND fragile yet nobody designed it.[quote]MattyG35 wrote:<<< I don’t know how many times I’m going to have to link to this, but it seems that I keep having to.
http://home.nctv.com/jackjan/item13.htm >>>[/quote]Since I know you’ve read all this could you please point to the article and paragraph at least where the origin of genetic language is shown? What I’ve read so far seems to indicate that scientists don’t agree on the definition of terms right from the start. I have another statement that will have to wait for now. [quote]MattyG35 wrote:<<< It seems to me that no matter how many people might die jumping off of a building, you won’t ever accept that gravity exists unless God did it. >>>[/quote]I would say that unless my God exists there is no basis for the existence of gravity which clearly does exist. Nat as clearly as God does exist, but clearly nonetheless.[quote]MattyG35 wrote:<<< If there is no evidence to support some observation, the default position is ‘I don’t know’ not ‘God did it’. >>>[/quote]I say there is NOTHING but evidence of God being the author of absolutely every observation we make. [quote]MattyG35 wrote:<<< I’m done going back and forth over this with you, so don’t feel the need to respond unless you’d like to have the final say.[/quote]Come on man. There’s no need to be like this.
[quote]orion wrote:
Evolution of novel genes.
Long M.
Source
Department of Ecology and Evolution, The University of Chicago, 1101 East 57th Street, Chicago Illinois 60637, USA. mlong@midway.uchicago.edu
Abstract
Much progress in understanding the evolution of new genes has been accomplished in the past few years. Molecular mechanisms such as illegitimate recombination and LINE element mediated 3’ transduction underlying exon shuffling, a major process for generating new genes, are better understood. The identification of young genes in invertebrates and vertebrates has revealed a significant role of adaptive evolution acting on initially rudimentary gene structures created as if by evolutionary tinkers. New genes in humans and our primate relatives add a new component to the understanding of genetic divergence between humans and non-humans.[/quote]Could I get your commentary on this please?
I’m off to bed, tty guys later.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]schmichael wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Your problem, and it is a huge one, is THAT type of evolution has NEVER been observed and therefore exits the realm of the scientific method and enters that of mere speculation.
THAT type of evolution requires an increase in genetic information - an implausible scenario, scientifically speaking, that requires…faith.
Only adaptation and limited speciation - without much deviation from the basic “kinds” - qualifies as “scientific.”
This is indisputable and some of the most brilliant minds in the world of evolutionary thought concede this. You would do well not buck the tide or you might find yourself contradicting some of those “serious scientists” you mentioned earlier.[/quote]
Again
[/quote]
More circular reasoning. You are assuming that evolution is the reason for the similarities. You can’t then turn around and claim it as proof of evolution because you have assumed the very thing that you are setting out to prove.
[/quote]
Whats your explanation of the similarities?
[/quote]
To be honest, in the pic you posted the similarities were very tenuous. But similarities can just as easily be explained by a common designer, as Push has been trying to explain to you.
Matty, the problem is that you are missing the point of a lot of these posts (from ‘our’ side). We tend to be focusing on the Philosophy of science (epistemology or how do we know what we know) while you are focused on the evidence. The problem with your approach is that both sides have the same evidence but they interpret it differently based on starting position (presuppositions). So while you might see the fossil record as evidence of evolution, we see it as evidence of the creation model (the flood, specifically).
Do you understand? I can post a good link for you to read is you like but it’s from creation.com. If you really do have an open mind I think it would help you see ‘our’ point of view better.
[quote]schmichael wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]schmichael wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Your problem, and it is a huge one, is THAT type of evolution has NEVER been observed and therefore exits the realm of the scientific method and enters that of mere speculation.
THAT type of evolution requires an increase in genetic information - an implausible scenario, scientifically speaking, that requires…faith.
Only adaptation and limited speciation - without much deviation from the basic “kinds” - qualifies as “scientific.”
This is indisputable and some of the most brilliant minds in the world of evolutionary thought concede this. You would do well not buck the tide or you might find yourself contradicting some of those “serious scientists” you mentioned earlier.[/quote]
Again
[/quote]
More circular reasoning. You are assuming that evolution is the reason for the similarities. You can’t then turn around and claim it as proof of evolution because you have assumed the very thing that you are setting out to prove.
[/quote]
Whats your explanation of the similarities?
[/quote]
To be honest, in the pic you posted the similarities were very tenuous. But similarities can just as easily be explained by a common designer, as Push has been trying to explain to you.
Matty, the problem is that you are missing the point of a lot of these posts (from ‘our’ side). We tend to be focusing on the Philosophy of science (epistemology or how do we know what we know) while you are focused on the evidence. The problem with your approach is that both sides have the same evidence but they interpret it differently based on starting position (presuppositions). So while you might see the fossil record as evidence of evolution, we see it as evidence of the creation model (the flood, specifically).
Do you understand? I can post a good link for you to read is you like but it’s from creation.com. If you really do have an open mind I think it would help you see ‘our’ point of view better.
[/quote]
We’re using totally different methods. That’s why creationism and intelligent design don’t belong in science classrooms. One uses methodological naturalism as the cause and explanation of natural phenomena and the other uses the supernatural explanations. Meaning the later doesn’t belong in science. It belongs in religion and philosophy classes.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]schmichael wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Part 8
Essentially, everything you say always seems to derive from the bible being a source of (ultimate) truth. And it isn’t. You’re unable to provide evidence for this, and any/every time someone calls you on it you deflect the question.
[/quote]
This is true of any axiomatic position. You seem to of the belief that science is a source of truth. How are you going to prove that? You can’t very well use science to prove it because you would be begging the question…[/quote]
What premise can we agree on then? You don’t think the scientific method can be utilized for discovery? I will have to say that I disagree with you on this, if that happens to be your stance.
[/quote]
I agree that the scientific method is valid, subject to its limitations. As wikipedia notes "To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
What this means is science can’t be used to determine if whales evolved into horses because that was never observed nor can it be repeated or tested.
Another implication is that science can’t be used to rule out the supernatural. If the supernatural exists, it is outside of the realm of science to test it. Make sense?
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]schmichael wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]schmichael wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Your problem, and it is a huge one, is THAT type of evolution has NEVER been observed and therefore exits the realm of the scientific method and enters that of mere speculation.
THAT type of evolution requires an increase in genetic information - an implausible scenario, scientifically speaking, that requires…faith.
Only adaptation and limited speciation - without much deviation from the basic “kinds” - qualifies as “scientific.”
This is indisputable and some of the most brilliant minds in the world of evolutionary thought concede this. You would do well not buck the tide or you might find yourself contradicting some of those “serious scientists” you mentioned earlier.[/quote]
Again
[/quote]
More circular reasoning. You are assuming that evolution is the reason for the similarities. You can’t then turn around and claim it as proof of evolution because you have assumed the very thing that you are setting out to prove.
[/quote]
Whats your explanation of the similarities?
[/quote]
To be honest, in the pic you posted the similarities were very tenuous. But similarities can just as easily be explained by a common designer, as Push has been trying to explain to you.
Matty, the problem is that you are missing the point of a lot of these posts (from ‘our’ side). We tend to be focusing on the Philosophy of science (epistemology or how do we know what we know) while you are focused on the evidence. The problem with your approach is that both sides have the same evidence but they interpret it differently based on starting position (presuppositions). So while you might see the fossil record as evidence of evolution, we see it as evidence of the creation model (the flood, specifically).
Do you understand? I can post a good link for you to read is you like but it’s from creation.com. If you really do have an open mind I think it would help you see ‘our’ point of view better.
[/quote]
We’re using totally different methods. That’s why creationism and intelligent design don’t belong in science classrooms. One uses methodological naturalism as the cause and explanation of natural phenomena and the other uses the supernatural explanations. Meaning the later doesn’t belong in science. It belongs in religion and philosophy classes. [/quote]
How have you determined that naturalism is the correct method to use? Not through science. It is your philosophical presupposition but it can’t be tested. You assume its truth based on faith.
[quote]schmichael wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]schmichael wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Part 8
Essentially, everything you say always seems to derive from the bible being a source of (ultimate) truth. And it isn’t. You’re unable to provide evidence for this, and any/every time someone calls you on it you deflect the question.
[/quote]
This is true of any axiomatic position. You seem to of the belief that science is a source of truth. How are you going to prove that? You can’t very well use science to prove it because you would be begging the question…[/quote]
What premise can we agree on then? You don’t think the scientific method can be utilized for discovery? I will have to say that I disagree with you on this, if that happens to be your stance.
[/quote]
I agree that the scientific method is valid, subject to its limitations. As wikipedia notes "To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
What this means is science can’t be used to determine if whales evolved into horses because that was never observed nor can it be repeated or tested.
Another implication is that science can’t be used to rule out the supernatural. If the supernatural exists, it is outside of the realm of science to test it. Make sense?
[/quote]
Cannot be observed in present time. But it doesn’t have to be observed in its current form in present time to be observed. Science can be used to observe historical natural phenomena.
[quote]schmichael wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]schmichael wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]schmichael wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Your problem, and it is a huge one, is THAT type of evolution has NEVER been observed and therefore exits the realm of the scientific method and enters that of mere speculation.
THAT type of evolution requires an increase in genetic information - an implausible scenario, scientifically speaking, that requires…faith.
Only adaptation and limited speciation - without much deviation from the basic “kinds” - qualifies as “scientific.”
This is indisputable and some of the most brilliant minds in the world of evolutionary thought concede this. You would do well not buck the tide or you might find yourself contradicting some of those “serious scientists” you mentioned earlier.[/quote]
Again
[/quote]
More circular reasoning. You are assuming that evolution is the reason for the similarities. You can’t then turn around and claim it as proof of evolution because you have assumed the very thing that you are setting out to prove.
[/quote]
Whats your explanation of the similarities?
[/quote]
To be honest, in the pic you posted the similarities were very tenuous. But similarities can just as easily be explained by a common designer, as Push has been trying to explain to you.
Matty, the problem is that you are missing the point of a lot of these posts (from ‘our’ side). We tend to be focusing on the Philosophy of science (epistemology or how do we know what we know) while you are focused on the evidence. The problem with your approach is that both sides have the same evidence but they interpret it differently based on starting position (presuppositions). So while you might see the fossil record as evidence of evolution, we see it as evidence of the creation model (the flood, specifically).
Do you understand? I can post a good link for you to read is you like but it’s from creation.com. If you really do have an open mind I think it would help you see ‘our’ point of view better.
[/quote]
We’re using totally different methods. That’s why creationism and intelligent design don’t belong in science classrooms. One uses methodological naturalism as the cause and explanation of natural phenomena and the other uses the supernatural explanations. Meaning the later doesn’t belong in science. It belongs in religion and philosophy classes. [/quote]
How have you determined that naturalism is the correct method to use? Not through science. It is your philosophical presupposition but it can’t be tested. You assume its truth based on faith.
[/quote]
Yes! You are totally right. That’s why it’s an axiom and I know it is taken on faith. But take that axiom away and you’re no longer using science.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]schmichael wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]schmichael wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Part 8
Essentially, everything you say always seems to derive from the bible being a source of (ultimate) truth. And it isn’t. You’re unable to provide evidence for this, and any/every time someone calls you on it you deflect the question.
[/quote]
This is true of any axiomatic position. You seem to of the belief that science is a source of truth. How are you going to prove that? You can’t very well use science to prove it because you would be begging the question…[/quote]
What premise can we agree on then? You don’t think the scientific method can be utilized for discovery? I will have to say that I disagree with you on this, if that happens to be your stance.
[/quote]
I agree that the scientific method is valid, subject to its limitations. As wikipedia notes "To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
What this means is science can’t be used to determine if whales evolved into horses because that was never observed nor can it be repeated or tested.
Another implication is that science can’t be used to rule out the supernatural. If the supernatural exists, it is outside of the realm of science to test it. Make sense?
[/quote]
Cannot be observed in present time. But it doesn’t have to be observed in its current form in present time to be observed. Science can be used to observe historical natural phenomena. [/quote]
Nonsense. The fossil record needs to be interpreted. Science can’t tell you if that whale fossil you’re looking at had kids that were slightly less whale and slightly more horse.
It also can’t be repeated or tested, so fails on those counts.