Questions for creationists

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Adalbertus

You seem to make the same mistake as creationists: To take the Bible literally word by word. "Even the Bible looses its worth if you regard it as a holy book" (Gabriel Laub). What a truth.

I am not making the mistake. I am pointing it out.

However I also point out that if it is only the word of men it has no more valididity than any other collection of religious writings. I see no reason to go with them either.

Its the creationists that claim its perfect. They even want to force it into the schools. Thats why it important point out that Creationism is neither true nor scientific.

This is not really a contradiction to what I said. We discovered it, but it is merely a structure of ourselves, not necessarily of nature.

Its not a structure of ourselves. We discover it we don't create it.

This has been proven which is why I mention it. I am not kidding that it has been proven. The proof has at least as much significance as Goerdles Proof that any system of logic must be either inconsistent or incompete.(yeah I know I mispelled the name there is a umlate in it for one thing).

The proof is fairly recent so its not as well know. I wish I could give a link but I checked the ones I have and they are gone now.

YEAH I found some stuff:

I think this is article I saw last year.

http://www.dc.uba.ar/people/profesores/becher/ns.html

Home page for Chaitan

http://www.umcs.maine.edu/~chaitin/

Review of one of his books

http://www.umcs.maine.edu/~chaitin/siam.html

Mathematics is not a natural science but a science about a part of our brain. It can only be proven to be a property of nature as far as we know that it works. There is no guarantee that it always works.

Not of our brain but the universe we live in and even of a greater meta-universe. Really try those links. My initial responce to them was to quote the Great Philospher Professor PT Gumby.

MY BRAIN HURTS

There is no miracle in the fact that you mathematically can construct things that are not related to our universe (except for the fact that it works so flawlessly, which is not guaranteed a priori). Euclidean Geometry is "not taught" but an inherent property of our perception -

Bet you can't prove that. Or even come up with a plausible reason for asserting it. Its not a property of our perception except that if we couldn't percieve we would never notice it. Or even argue about it.

You cannot change perception of room and space as being separate, even if you are educated in special relativity. "Perpendicular" is something fixed when you deal with things of your daily life. The miracle is that when our intuition (=Euclidean geometry) fails, we still are able to describe the universe more successfully by a non-Euclidean geometry. There is no reason a priori or given by evolutionary theory why this should be possible.

Nothing there shows that math is dependent on humans or evolution. Nothing miraculous either. In fact I would say you did a good job of making my point. If Euclidean geometry is what is inherent in human thinking then its pretty obvious that non-euclidean is outside inherently human thought. Therefor math is not dependent on mankind.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by MacTBone
As far as I and everyone I've ever heard of know, the Universe will last forever.

I have heard otherwise. Not that it won't last forever but that it is possible that it won't. At present it looks like the universe is open. However if we live in a closed universe then eventually it will end in the Big Crunch when everything falls into a singularity.

As I say though the Universe looks open. It will have a sort of an end though. A point will be reached when change ceases because every particle is so far away from any other particle that there is no more interaction between them. The Timelike Infinity end of the Universe.

Anything that does not have an end, necessarily does not have a beginning.

Not true. At present all evidence says the universe had a beginning. All evidence shows the universe will not have a end unless you consider Timelike Infinity to be an end.

So, the Universe always has been and always will be, it just changes. Maybe in the extremely distant future matter is spread so thin that nothing is distinguishable, that does not mean the Universe isn't there, it just means it has become very tiny to our understanding.

You simply are ignoring the evidence and trying to make it disapear in a puff of specious logic. The Universe is expanding. There for it must have been smaller in the past. We even have evidence to support the Big Bang in the form of the Cosmic Backround radiation which matches Big Bang theory.

If the universe had always existed we would be in a very different universe than we are. Indeed we would not exist. The universe would have a uniform and very high temperature. The sky would not be black. The only way for the sky to be black is if the universe not infinite in space or in time.

Two links on the Olber's Black Sky Paradox

http://www.sciencenet.org.uk/database/Physics/9609/p00503d.html

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/olbers.html

[Logical Realist]

For you, maybe, not for him.

But does his pov really effect whether or not the statement was actually proven or disproven? Not really. To say it does, like you do, is merely a form of question begging and a denial of the evidence. A denial is not equal to a refutation.

He can, but this still doesn't change the fact that he cannot do any progress. Other than that, before he had any progress, he would not communicate because of general scepticism about communication.

Ok, you said that a skeptic's denial of "proof" refutes the evidence. By these same standards I can say "I disagree, I think I can progress" or say "your position leads to no more progress than my own". And you couldn't prove him wrong, if we went by your pov.

Also, why couldn't one who expressed general skepticism about communication communicate? He could just say he can, and in your viewpoint, that cannot be disproven.

What I want to say is
1) With a suitable definition of "existence" you don't need the contraposition. So you get rid of everything that is classically summarized as logic (and expressed in truth tables).
2) What you still need is "how to compare a definition to something". This is not explicitly a law of logic. But you might argue that the mechanism in the brain is the same and that the "evil god" can be cheating you also when comparing a definition to something.

1)How does not needing a contraposition get rid of logic? You still need logic if you are to get from "thought exists" to "I must exist". Otherwise one might "think" but not exist, regardless of definitions. I mean, if the law of contradiction does not hold, what is wrong with contradictory definitions?
2) Well like I said, without logic you cannot validly compare definitions at all. You still have not proven how you can. Your whole argument still relies on logic, in that you assume, that you cannot use non sequitars and still have a strong argument. The entire structure still rests on consistency and validity.Also, you have in no way shown how any of those two above points make a destinction between applying logic and using a logical method.

In the sense that they have no ("transcendent") truth value at all, it cannot be lowered. We do not know any absolute truth about the exterior world.

That itself presupposes some absolute truth.

The only thing we know is that what we think to know works quite well.

Again without validity that does not hold. One can say "all we know is what works" and then later say "and that is absolute truth" without any set standards. How, without set standards, do you know whether or not a piece of knowledge works? What does it mean to work?

If we had any absolute truth, there would be no scientific revolution in this point. We know that Newton's mechanics is wrong at any speed (except for a particle at rest) in a given inertial frame, when you compare it to special relativity. The only thing is that Newton's mechanics works quite well for low speeds. The same is with special relativity vs. general relativity (except you know any more than 0-dimensional space where there is no gravity).

That is sort of a straw man. You imply that if I think there is absolute truth about one thing, it means that I must accept entire theories of physics as absolute. However that isn't necessarily so, I can for example say that logic is absolute while physics is probable. That would leave physics open to change, while keeping absolutes.

We have no idea about an external truth neither in logic nor in physics nor in biology. The only thing we know is that it works quite well.

Well that depends on what you mean by external truth. If you mean that there are no ideas floating outside of human brains...then I agree. All ideas are in minds and in that sense internal.

If you mean though that we cannot say any claim concerning things outside our mind is "true" that is very wrong. That is what biology and physics are all about. Such a claim itself is a commitment of the subjectivist fallacy, since it is a claim about the outside world(at least that of my mind and such). If what you are saying is true, then how do you know that I cannot know of any external truth? You cannot, since knowledge of my mind would constitute an external truth. I find it evident as well as the only consistent position, to say human's must know something about the external world.

The fact that a prisoner cannot escape doesn't mean that prison is the natural state of life. Logic is self-evident because it is a built-in property of humans, as it is the notion of Galilean space-time (which is wrong, but works for us, as we know since Einstein). That human knowledge becomes arbitrary without logic means we have to live with it, not that it reflects a universal truth.

You can only prove such a statement by means of argument and hence logic. You still keep trying to jettison logic then use it to prove your case. Lets say logic does not hold true universally,then you argument does not always hold(since to say it did would require consistency and thus logic). Knowledge might then reflect reality absolutely, in which case we are stuck with probable arguments, and you even said yourself probability, based on science, seems to be with the side of logic. We do not need to do that though since your argument isn't valid.

You assume that since logic is material and in a mind, that logic hence cannot reflect something universal and say anything about the outside world. That doesn't follow. Explanations are not the same things as arguments. Just because I can explain where an idea came from, it does not mean that the idea was refuted, unless I show that there is some sort of relevance, as far as evidence goes, as to why that explanation would also count as a refutation.

If I say that it is self-evident that logic reflects something universal, proving that logic evolved does not refute this. It merely explains the origins of logic, which would neither help my case nor hinder it.

Comparing one non-universal evolved form of thinking, again, likewise does not refute this. Also note that Einstein argued for his viewpoint via logic. If logic fails then you cannot say that Einstein's viewis better than the Galilean one. And you lost the very "proof" which you stood on.

[QUOTE]
[QUOTE]We only know it works quite well as a system in itself (Mathematics being the biggest test),


How did you come to know this without logic? Why must that statement hold?

When I try to test the consistency of a system I'm well allowed to use the system itself.

How did you come to this conclusion? Justify that statement. Where did you get this rule, and this requires logic remember. Without logic, inconsistency does not lower the truth-value of a given statement. Consistency thus requires logic to be utilized, you cannot therefore justify the use of logic via consistency.

This consistency is the only thing why I think that logic might reflect a truth (and not only a "works somehow") outside our brains, and it is only verified as far as it is tested.

k, what do you mean by "tested" and how do you justify drawing concepts from a test without logic instead of any conceivable, no matter how goofy they are, alternatives? Again, you need to recognize that consistency is a value derived from logical principles and hence, cannot be used to justify the truth of logic.


Me:That itself a universal truth?

Good point, but it doesn't help as long as you cannot prove that there is any guarantee of any universal proof.
quote:

I can say it is evident and prove it reductio ad absurdum, given the principle of non-contradiction, provided that it was the only sensible aleternative to the statement "nothing can be proeven absolutely". Since if that statement is wrong, it must then be true that at least some things can be proven absolutely. This is because no other conclusions are reasonable given that situation.

Me:We could try to build a different system but it would be arbitrary.

How would you try to do that (other than changing truth tables or definitions)?

Well I can invent a system where contradictions are allowed and truth is whatever the first one to speak says it is. That would work.

Me:Actually that doesn't work, if by "works" you mean stands unquestioned because then non-thinking beings can think.

How do you come to that? If some being thinks it thinks, it thinks.

That only works if the law of identity holds. I can otherwise say "If it thinks it doesn't think" and without logic that, would "work".

Otherwise it wouldn't be able to be convinced in the personal view about "I think therefore I am".

Ok you're not convinced then...so what? That's my point exactly, the whole idea rests on logical axioms, without them, the claim can be denied.

Note this is different from the BASIC program

PRINT "I think therefore I am"
END

I cannot trust you that you are thinking. You could be some computer programmed to post regularly at Apolyton (no offense intended). You cannot trust me I am thinking. But I can trust myself that I am thinking.

I am asking, how you can trust that youa re thinking without logic. Because if you are uncertain of logic you cannot be certain of the fact that you are thinking. This is because then contradictions could exist, and a non-thinker could think. What in the end makes you think the idea of a non-thinking being thinking is untrue?

Just like O'Brien said to Winston when Winston asked if Big Brother existed, O'Brien responded by saying "You don't exist ", without logic, even that statement may be true, even from Winston's point of view.









Me:Also how do you know what definitions are the most "natural"?

Sorry, I thought you had over all those sophisms still a bit of common sense left.

So you are saying that logic does not reflect the real world but common sense does?

In the end though you fail to show how Desacartes can say "I think therefore I am" with absolute certainty, unless he accepts logic as absolute(If that was your inention, showing that was certainly the point of my post). Because then it would be possible to "Think and yet not be", and as long as that possibility existed, absolute certainty could not be attained.

[Logical Realist]

If the universe had always existed we would be in a very different universe than we are. Indeed we would not exist. The universe would have a uniform and very high temperature. The sky would not be black. The only way for the sky to be black is if the universe not infinite in space or in time.

In regards to this,and your idea of the Big Crunch, you forget that by always existing we do not mean always existing as it is now. We admit that it can change. Hence your examples would indicate a change in the universe not an end to it.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Jack_www
Ethelred, you believe that all if not most of the information or evidencce that I posted on here is form Creationist or others who try and bend the facts to misslead other people.

Much of it. Most of Creationist claims are fully disproven and most of the people that came up with the claims initialy are fully aware of the disproofs. They continue to go on just as if they weren't disproven. I call that deliberate deception. Active ignorance.

For example when I put down that the chances of the most simplist portein to form is one to the 10 to 113 power. Well you thing we must realize about protiens is that when they form they fold when forming into many different shapes, and even though a protien may have the same chain of amino acids, if their shape is different they will have different uses in the cell.

Its not the simplest protein. Thats what makes the claim false. The other thing they are deliberatly ignoring that there is no need for any specific protein. To claim it MUST be a certain specific protein is to decieve.

This is an article in the New York Times. The title of the article is "Designing life: Proteins 1, computer 0."
03/25/97, Vol. 146 Issue 50742, pC1
Scientists form all over the world "armed with their best computer programs competed to solve one of the most complex problems in biology: how a single protien, made from a long string of amino acids, folds itself into the intricate shape that determines the role it plays in life . . . The result, succinctly put, was this: the computers lost and the proteins won. . . Scientists have estimated that for an averge-sized protein, made from 100 amino acids, solving the folding problem by trying every possibility would take 10" to the 27 power "years."

Very nice. It has nothing to do with what the earliest self reproducing molecule might have been or how likely it was to form spontaneously from simpler molecules.

By the way the folding problem is being attacked in different way. You too can help calculate protein folding by downloading a screensaver program. Get enough PC's on it an you will beat the best supercomputers. A problem that takes a thousand years can often be done in one year by useing a thousand computers.

This is just to prove that proteins that are found in our body are extrimly complex with a numerous possible cominations of them.

Which has little to do with the odds of them evolving or of the odds of the first self-replicating module. You are going with the idea that the proteins must be exactly as they are today. Which is just plain wrong.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Zealot


Yes, thank you, I know they still have spines, but I think it's not hard to understand that I'm looking for an explanation about the appearance of the pelvis!

So Creationist how do you explain that there is NO evidence for the Flood? None at all.


The pelvis may have evolved from projections from the spinal column. The purpose is to support organs that are no longer supported by water.

Its not that hard to understand. Even a Zealot could learn if he chose to. Take a paleontology class.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Logical Realist


In regards to this,and your idea of the Big Crunch, you forget that by always existing we do not mean always existing as it is now. We admit that it can change. Hence your examples would indicate a change in the universe not an end to it.

The Big Crunch is not my idea. It is however inherent in a shrinking universe. We don't live in one though.

The universe is indeed changing. Its getting larger. So it must have been smaller in the past. Does that make sense to you?

If the universe was smaller in the past and not expanding then the sky would not have been black and the universe would eventually reach an even temperature. Which would be hard on any life that might have existed. Life cannot function without energy differentials.

For a change to happen something must cause it. Show cause for this change you are hypothesizing. The only cause I have seen is the Big Bang and symetry breaking in the early universe. By early I am talking within the first second of the history of the universe.

[Lung]

Originally posted by Zealot

Yes, thank you, I know they still have spines, but I think it's not hard to understand that I'm looking for an explanation about the appearance of the pelvis!

Now that's a spurious argument If ever a missing link you claim to be the downfall of evolution is found, you simply refer to another missing link as your 'proof'.

Evolutionists do not have to prove every evolutionary incremental increase that ever occurred. It's like an enourmous jigsaw puzzle with many pieces missing. We can see it's a castle, but we can't see every single stone because we haven't found all the pieces yet. Of course, many pieces may never be found because biological life forms were not catalogued before humans started doing so. The vast number of all living things leave no long term trace, so we have a relatively small fossil record to go on. Of course, that record is still significantly large enough to show lineages of most life forms.

The important point here is that slowly, the gaps are being filled in. For an example, check out this article. You now have one less bad example to use

[Zealot]

Originally posted by Lung
Now that's a spurious argument If ever a missing link you claim to be the downfall of evolution is found, you simply refer to another missing link as your 'proof'.

Who said anything about a missing link? Wasn't me for sure!
Bot now that you mentioned it, don't you think this is a really important subject? I mean, in every vertebrate fossil animal you can find a spine, but the pelvis fossil you can only find in completely formed animal fossils! Considering the number of species that use a pelvis, don't you consider it to be as important as a spine?
Wich to me is the main evidence that the theory of evolution is such a wisemen foolishness! You pick up an individual, considerably lookalike, animal and say: "Hey, look how similar these specimens are! Specimen A must have evolved from Specimen B!"
And then some cool theories are created to back up these hipothesis, many of them making sense to the ordinary Joe Doe.
I'm sorry, but I don't buy that such low probability of good evolutions can produce such biodiversity.
The rule Survival of the fittest wouldn't allow it!

Originally posted by Lung
The important point here is that slowly, the gaps are being filled in. For an example, check out this article. You now have one less bad example to use

Hehem.

Considering that fossil and molecular evidence place water lilies among the most ancient flowering plants, the authors suggest that their diploid endosperm may represent the ancestral condition, an intermediate form linking the haploid gymnosperms and the triploid angiosperms.

Wich means that this is an interpretation of the research results, not a scienthific thesis!
No, I won't criticize it, because I don't realise exactly what they are trying to say.
But hey, I do praise them for being honest and not saying that what they're saying should be considered as the absolute answer to a question [wich I didn't quite realise yet wich one].

[Lung]

Originally posted by Zealot

I mean, in every vertebrate fossil animal you can find a spine,

Vertebrates are defined as having a spine *stir, stir*

Who said anything about a missing link? Wasn't me for sure!
Bot now that you mentioned it, don't you think this is a really important subject? I mean, in every vertebrate fossil animal you can find a spine, but the pelvis fossil you can only find in completely formed animal fossils! Considering the number of species that use a pelvis, don't you consider it to be as important as a spine?
Wich to me is the main evidence that the theory of evolution is such a wisemen foolishness! You pick up an individual, considerably lookalike, animal and say: "Hey, look how similar these specimens are! Specimen A must have evolved from Specimen B!"
And then some cool theories are created to back up these hipothesis, many of them making sense to the ordinary Joe Doe.
I'm sorry, but I don't buy that such low probability of good evolutions can produce such biodiversity.
The rule Survival of the fittest wouldn't allow it!

Perhaps you should look at the mountain of evidence in support of evolution, instead of selecting one example simply upon the basis that you think that there's a gap requiring a sufficient leap of faith. Let us not forget that the basis of your attack is merely to keep the argument away from your belief whose only defence is that it's written in a book claiming to be the word of god.

Wich means that this is an interpretation of the research results, not a scienthific thesis!
No, I won't criticize it, because I don't realise exactly what they are trying to say.
But hey, I do praise them for being honest and not saying that what they're saying should be considered as the absolute answer to a question [wich I didn't quite realise yet wich one].

They're not so much trying to say something as describing some recently discovered facts and suggesting it's implications - that a previously formidable jump in the evolutionary chain has something akin to a bridge. Their honesty is based in scientific principle, that evidence and experimentation are the basis of science, and that everything that is considered to be true can be subject to contention by the very same principles of experimentation and evidence.

[Zealot]

Originally posted by Lung
Vertebrates are defined as having a spine *stir, stir*

no comments

Originally posted by Lung
Perhaps you should look at the mountain of evidence in support of evolution, instead of selecting one example simply upon the basis that you think that there's a gap requiring a sufficient leap of faith. Let us not forget that the basis of your attack is merely to keep the argument away from your belief whose only defence is that it's written in a book claiming to be the word of god.

Are we talking about religion or science here?
Because if it is relegion, I would present to you how strong and true are the Bible's prophecies, history and science. But if it is life's origin and its science, then all I must do is to demand a sparkling explanation to Earth's biodiversity.
So, who's running away from the subject?

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by Ethelred


Much of it. Most of Creationist claims are fully disproven and most of the people that came up with the claims initialy are fully aware of the disproofs. They continue to go on just as if they weren't disproven. I call that deliberate deception. Active ignorance.



Its not the simplest protein. Thats what makes the claim false. The other thing they are deliberatly ignoring that there is no need for any specific protein. To claim it MUST be a certain specific protein is to decieve.



Very nice. It has nothing to do with what the earliest self reproducing molecule might have been or how likely it was to form spontaneously from simpler molecules.

By the way the folding problem is being attacked in different way. You too can help calculate protein folding by downloading a screensaver program. Get enough PC's on it an you will beat the best supercomputers. A problem that takes a thousand years can often be done in one year by useing a thousand computers.



Which has little to do with the odds of them evolving or of the odds of the first self-replicating module. You are going with the idea that the proteins must be exactly as they are today. Which is just plain wrong.

I dont think that you deny the fact that the protiens that all living cells use to toady are exterminely complex. I suppose that one could say that the truely simplist protien would be one with 2,3,4 amino acids in it. The question here is could such a protein be used by any knid of cell that ever existed?

Anyways the main thing I was getting at is the protiens are complex. Very complex. Anyways that statistic was just looking at one of the most simplist protiens that we can see today. But you right there are all kinds of different protiens out there that are used by the cell. But I guess it could be just consider that even the simplist protiens that we see today are very complex in nature.

There are only certain protiens that will work, and other simply will not work in current cells, and what you considered simple cells that existed long ago. I would like to know is there any fosils of what you considered the earlist cell to have ever existed? I really mean this as a honest question. Can you provided any detailed info on this? Can you find major scienticfic studies done on this subject? Oe at least give me a good place to start to find this info.

[Lung]

Originally posted by Zealot

Are we talking about religion or science here?
Because if it is relegion, I would present to you how strong and true are the Bible's prophecies, history and science. But if it is life's origin and its science, then all I must do is to demand a sparkling explanation to Earth's biodiversity.
So, who's running away from the subject?

Oooh....it seems that the gloves are OFF!!

I have a sparkling explanation to Earth's biodiversity - evolution I could elaborate, but i would simply be stating what you've heard before. Considering you don't believe it to be true, it would be rather pointless, don't you think? To try and find an answer to your question would be pointless, as it was a loaded question, which leads me to my point earlier about retreating to a part of the evolutionary chain which has not yet been identified. The rest of the theory of evolution speaks for itself.

In any case, i don't have to show that one particular change occurred as a result of evolution. I need only show that change occurs to species in order to show that evolution occurs. Humans have even changed, and it has been measured countless times. Do you deny that this has taken place? Do you deny that changes do occur to living things over generations? To do so would be to insist that all living things are the same as they always were. They can track an AIDS virus within a human body and see the evolutionary changes within the lifetime of that particular human.

My grandparents used to be dog breeders, yet do not believe in evolution. So, they can change dogs over generations through deliberate selection, but a changing environment cannot do so by natural means?

The only reason why people persist with such a perposterous notion that biology (and everything else) does not change over time is because it says to the contrary in the bible, or does it? Theologists don't like evolution because it implies that god didn't create everything. The argument comes down to:

a) It was written in a book;

versus

b) Piles of evidence to the contrary exists.

or, simplified, intangible vs tangible Take your pick

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Zealot

Are we talking about religion or science here?
Because if it is relegion, I would present to you how strong and true are the Bible's prophecies, history and science.

Please do. Yes show how the Bible has Pi equal to 3.000. Or the world a little over 6000 years old. Or had a flood that never happened.

And I love those bogus prophecies. There are some but I hardly consider any of the real ones as requiring devine guidance. Then there is Jehovahs prophecy that Caine would be a vagabond. 4 verses later Caine gets married, has at least one child and founds a city. Thats a great prophecy. I wasn't aware that vagabond meant city founder.

But do go ahead and post some prophecies. REAL prophecies that are labeled as such in the Bible not the usual backwards filtering I see getting passed off a prophecy. Like using the passover recipe for lamb as a prophecy that Jesus wouldn't have any bones broken. I love that one. Its funny.

Post a few at a time so as not to overload anyones efforts to show how they are real prophecies. Also that way you can stick to real ones you can support with real evidence not something that no one can check on.

But if it is life's origin and its science, then all I must do is to demand a sparkling explanation to Earth's biodiversity.
So, who's running away from the subject?

Easy. Biodiversity is a product of evolution of course. There are millions of niches for life to fill so it has done so with millions of species. Mostly beetles. 800,000 beetles. If Jehovah created all the species its clear the chosen people are actually beetles.

You are running away from the subject. I bet you don't respond.

[Lung]

Originally posted by Ethelred

If Jehovah created all the species its clear the chosen people are actually beetles.

Praise be to beetles! Hail! Hail!!