Skip to comments.Intelligent Design Scientists Will Showcase Evidence Challenging Evolution
Posted on 03/13/2007 12:35:30 PM PDT by truthfinder9
click here to read article
"Finding that the current rate of change of the human genome is too small to account for the magnitude of the differences between humans and chimps since the time of the proposed common ancestor."
What do you think of this then:
Humans evolved their cognitive abilities not due to a few accidental mutations, but rather from an enormous number of mutations...To accomplish so much in so little evolutionary timea few tens of millions of yearsrequires a selective process that is perhaps categorically different from the typical processes of acquiring new biological traits."
"...there may have been thousands of mutations in thousands of genes that contributed to the evolution of the human brain. This staggering number of mutations suggests the human lineage was driven by intense selection process."
You're contradicting yourself. Granting sometimes significant evidence is hard to come by (which is why they look so hard for it). Theories are never proven by 'smoking guns' only supported.
It's always about falsification. You can make predictions about things you haven't seen yet (because you haven't dug their yet in the case of fossils, or because you haven't developed the instrument/method to see the data in the case of cosmology and DNA). When you see those things (e.g. new fossils, DNA sequences or variations in the background radiations) you test your theory, just like any experimental science.
You and I agree YEC has been falsified. What would it take to convince a YECist that it was false? (a boot to the head?)
The 'begging the question' fallacy came in when you said, "There's the observed fact of evolution...".
That begs the question of whether observed facts support evolution.
No, because you didn't say it and missed the point entirely.
But, surely you already know that too.
Intelligent Design is a far cry from Creationism but does give credit where credit is due.
I'm sorry, then I am confused . . . what was the point? I thought I addressed you directly, on topic. I must have missed something?
Gee (1999) was correct about there being fundamental differences in the methodology used by historical and experimental scientists. Experimental scientists focus on a single (sometimes complex) hypothesis, and the main research activity consists in repeatedly bringing about the test conditions specified by the hypothesis, and controlling for extraneous factors that might produce false positives and false negatives. Historical scientists, in contrast, usually concentrate on formulating multiple competing hypotheses about particular past events. Their main research efforts are directed at searching for a smoking gun, a trace that sets apart one hypothesis as providing a better causal explanation (for the observed traces) than do the others.
You were responding to a post about Galileo and Copernicus being attacked by the church for talking about 'observed facts'.
Now Galileo and Copernicus advocated heliocentrism and I asked you what 'observed fact' you were talking about and what is the observation that proves it?
If it's a fact, it must have been proved. If it hasn't been proved, it isn't a fact, but a belief.
We may be opposites re: evolution, but that line did make coffee come out my nose.
Wait, you're arguing with -- heliocentrism?
Nah, not really, right?
Wait, you're arguing with -- heliocentrism?
Nah, not really, right?
See how easily you move from 'observed fact' into belief? So easy even a cave man could do it.
The truth is that there is no 'observed fact' uniquely supporting heliocentrism and you are totally unaware of that fact. Ever understand what coordinate systems (CS) in Einsteinian relativity actually means?
What else do you accept as 'fact' when there is no factual basis thereof?
Or -- it's so rare to find someone who isn't aware of the facts supporting the heliocentric dynamic that I'm rather surprised!
Gosh, if we're going to debate this, I have to know more about what you believe, what you disbelieve, and what you know/don't know.
Ok, using telescopes to observe the motion of the planets, it becomes clear that the Earth is *not* the center of the system but the Sun is.
Do you dispute that fact? Should we debate that?
I suppose you're already done, since you've resorted to insults. Well, that's fine. Thanks for playing. =)
You might ask him about the phases of Venus...
Your first mistake is assuming that I am not aware of the arguments and beliefs surrounding the heliocentric vs geocentric positions.
Your second mistake is in not being able to provide an 'observed fact' that uniquely supports heliocentrism. But that's pretty standard for you guys. You can't distinguish between observed fact and belief.
"Ok, using telescopes to observe the motion of the planets, it becomes clear that the Earth is *not* the center of the system but the Sun is."
You move very easily from observed facts to beliefs without recognizing the difference, which is what I pointed out earlier. The observed fact that the planets orbit the sun does not mean that the earth orbiting the sun is also an 'observed fact'. Are you able to understand that?
If heliocentrism is a 'fact', Why did Einstein and Infield say in 'The Evolution of Physics, "(Einstein and Infeld, 1938, p. 212):
Can we formulate physical laws so that they are valid for all CS [coordinate systems], not only those moving uniformly, but also those moving quite arbitrarily, relative to each other? [
] The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: the sun is at rest and the earth moves or the sun moves and the earth is at rest would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS."
Sorry bud. All that proves is that the planets orbit the sun. Nothing more.
"Semantics are for wimps"
So is insistence on belief over observed facts. The least you could do is admit that there are no such 'observed facts' rather than trying to pretend the argument is over semantics.
Einstein was bright enough to realize that and so am I. What's up w/ you?
Junior, Junior, Junior...
The observed phases of Venus only mean that Venus and the sun exhibit relative motion. They certainly don't prove heliocentricity.
"All that proves is that the planets orbit the sun."
You have a different definition of Heliocentrism than this?
About The Conferences
Join journalist and New York Times bestselling author Lee Strobel and a panel of scientists at Discovery Institute's Darwin vs. Design Conference as they explore the evidence for Darwin's theory of evolution and explain the emerging scientific theory of intelligent design.
Conference attendees will interact with intelligent design scientists and experts whose discoveries in cosmology, biology, physics, and DNA present astonishing scientific evidence that is overturning the evolutionary thihnking of the past. Conference goers will hear firsthand the astounding implications these discoveries are having on our society, our politics, and our culture.
"The relation of the two pictures [geocentricity and heliocentricity] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein's theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view."
First of all, you misrepresent me if you suggest that I claim that the sun was the exact center of the Universe, Galaxy or Solar System.
Then, you acknowledge that both Einstein and Hoyle recognize that there are no 'observed facts' that uniquely support heliocentism... but you choose to believe it anyway.
That's fine. You're certainly free to do that. Just don't criticize me if I choose an equal and opposite coordinate transformation than the one you have chosen.
You have a different definition of Heliocentrism than this?
Actually, I misspoke. It doesn't even prove that, as both Einstein and Hoyle explain.
Can we formulate physical laws so that they are valid for all CS [coordinate systems], not only those moving uniformly, but also those moving quite arbitrarily, relative to each other? [ ] The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: the sun is at rest and the earth moves or the sun moves and the earth is at rest would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS."
Of course. That's part of the beauty of the non-inertial reference frames.
"The CS that is an inertial reference frame for our solar system describes the planets motion including the earth motion as ellipses around the sun (better: center of mass of the system)."
"You can use different points of view. No matter. But one is special. May we call this point of view "reality"?"
Hate to burst your bubble, but there isn't just *one* (i.e., heliocentric) special, non-inertial reference frame. A geocentric non-inertial reference frame is perfectly acceptable as the 'special' reference frame.
Don't you know that?
Um, do you know what that means?
It means that the system is a product of *all* bodies in the system, and that it doesn't matter what coordinate system you
Let's start with the simplest level:
When you look into a telescope, and watch the moon, say. You watch it go from horizon to horizon, "circling" the Earth. You see this happens every day, in a pattern. That is one bit of evidence supporting heliocentrism -- a larger body's gravity acting on the smaller body.
Then look at your telescope again, at Mars, say. You now observe the same behavior. This, then, supports the same dynamic gravity system. No matter what coordinate system you use, you will notice that the behavior can be explained by the same set of equations, based on the gravitation pull of the two objects in question.
That sounds a lot like baraminology. There is an interesting blog on that silliness here.
The theory of evolution could be disproved if the evidence showed that we either did not evolve from other life forms (for example, instantaneous creation, say, last Thursday), or the evidence showed that we were dropped here fully formed by space aliens or some such. Either of these scenarios would disprove the current theory of evolution.
The problem is, there is no convincing evidence for these, or any of hundreds of alternate scenarios.
"D has a lot going for it to explain why creatures of all types suddenly appear at different times in the fossil record...
"That sounds a lot like baraminology. "
How do you get baraminology from "suddenly appear"? And thanks for pointing me to a one-sided blog. Maybe I can scrounge up a one-sided creationist blog for you to read up on.
There are a number of observations that show we live in a heliocentric solar system. Why do you think "Siderial" is different than "Mean Solar"?
There are living examples of this. Just google "ring species" and you will see groups with increasing differences around a barrier, such as a mountain or other major landform, until the groups at the opposite ends cannot interbreed--the definition of a species. The interesting thing is, each adjacent group can interbreed, but the two endpoints cannot.
Ring species provide evidence for speciation (macro-evolution), and you can even see all of the intermediate steps!
It is the center of the universe however. Actually every point in the universe is at the center.
Is there any other kind?
Very fascinating, I didn't know that!
> That begs the question of whether observed facts support evolution
Again, back to the gravity parallel. There are problems, some quite serious, with the theories (yes, there's more than one) of gravity that we have today. None of them explain all the observations. Then again, there are the FACTS of gravity. If you hold an apple up and let it go, it will fall.
If somebody wants to discuss legitimate objections and alternatives to various theories of gravity, that's a fun and serious undertaking. If somebody wants to claim gravity doesn't exist, the earth just sucks, well....
That's where the parallel with evolution and creationism is.
It's not "begging the question", it's clarifying the question.
A gap argument: We don't know what the cosmological constant should be but God did it therefore it is just right.
A telic/id argument: On general principles we know what the cosmological constants should be, roughly. It turns out to be 120 orders of magnitude smaller than expected.
A response from naturalism/materialism: If you legs were 10% shorter, you'd hover above the ground as you walked. If they were 10% longer, you'd have to have someone dig holes for you to step into in order to walk. (again, see the gap argument above as it avoids any consideration due to an a priori belief)
"It means that the system is a product of *all* bodies in the system, and that it doesn't matter what coordinate system you..."
The question is do *you* understand what that means. I'm betting that you philosophically adopt a severely-restricted definition and ignore the greater.
"No matter what coordinate system you use, you will notice that the behavior can be explained by the same set of equations, based on the gravitation pull of the two objects in question."
Strictly speaking, it's not the 'gravitational pull' but the 'laws of gravity'. This might seem trivial but is an important difference.
In addition, gravity is not understood and the laws of gravity are observed to operate differently between the solar system and intergalactic space. That's what 'dark matter' is all about.
'Dark matter' is an invisible entity that is invoked to explain anomalous behavior of galactic objects.
Please explain why you think the the difference between 'sidereal' and 'mean solar' uniquely supports heliocentrism?
Can you tell the difference between a fact and a claim, boys and girls?
Someone please help RA with this.
No, when you say, "There's the observed fact of evolution..." you are clearly begging the question.
That you refuse to admit it is... understandable.
Although we know something about nature, we cannot state that God created nature as being a miracle - it could come out that there is indeed a scientific explanation that God meant for us to figure out. The Holy Spirit is a miracle and so is my son not being hurt at all when he flipped his car over at a high rate of speed and said that "something" which he believes an angel held him back from hitting the roof (already preached to him - but he was not wearing a seatbelt). Freaked the ER right out - not even a scratch or sore muscle. Life changing experience - he is firmly convinced that God has more for him to do.
I don't see this as contradictory at all - I believe He created one man in His image, etc., but what does God look like? There are two theories - we were created in His image spiritually (love, respect, etc.) or we look like Him. Either way, or both, there is nothing that contradicts that over time we changed, or adapted to our environment. I do not believe in any form of evolutionary belief that says otherwise - and perhaps he chose to have us evolve by our own free will. I don't have all the answers but I will always keep an open mind because Lord knows that as humans, we err.
Ah yes, dark matter
does this actually exist? Higgs (or the force exchange particle) should have shown up when the atom-smashing energy levels reached ~.8 TeV. We are beyond that now
Its turtles all the way down when you start invoking a heavier mass in smaller particles, quark-gluon plasma, mini-black holes from heavy ion collisions, etc
BTW, everyone must have been tricked into a religious and biblical creationist view due to the fact that the Big Bang is creationism in a cheap tuxedo. No one fought the Big Bang theory because of the obvious telic implications. / sarc
BTW, did you take a look at the peer reviewed article I posted in 157?
I read the article several days ago when you posted it.
I was particularly struck by the findings, one part of which was summarized in the abstract as follows:
As a consequence, the claim that historical science is methodologically inferior to experimental science cannot be sustained.
No, your logic is false. Your premise, observed fact = planets orbit the sun, cannot be true if you also claim that it is not an observed fact that the planet earth orbits the sun. If a=b then a=b.
Also what exactly is your point about Einsteins point that there are no absolute reference points? How does that invalidate heliocentrism?
Beep. Circle takes the square. The phases of Venus only make sense if Venus is orbiting the Sun closer in than the Earth. Planets orbiting the Sun farther out than the orbit of the Earth will not exhibit phases, as we can only ever see the face pointed toward the Sun.
I must admit it is strange having to explain this to you. It's almost like talking to someone from the Middle Ages.
Yes, the only way to disprove it is if God shows up and says He made us or an alien says he put us here. That's what makes the theory of evolution a religion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.