DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?

It's already well known.

 

I'd like to thank you for your excellent intervention in this thread! Your intelligence is clearly far ahead of those mere mortals with their PhDs who formulated their theories based on science and experiment, over many years, and carefully reviewed by their peers! We bow to your superior knowledge and ability, and stand in awe of what you have achieved!

 

The flasks and tubes aren't part of the actual reaction. They are just used as storage and movement of the chemicals in a laboratory setting to simulate what happens in real life. In the wild, those chemicals will flow down rocks or something like that. He could have gone into the wild and flowed them down rocks, but that experiment wouldn't be as easily measurable, taken longer, and he would have need a lot of environmental cleanup.

Miller wasn't trying to produce life and nobody ever claimed he ever did. Thats like attacking Einstein that he never discovered the origin or the universe or the origin of gravity.

 

We have the rocks, dirt, and minerals from that era and you can tell a ton about that ecological environment and the atmosphere from these fossil clues.

The dates are based on radiometric dating which is based on math and chemistry not speculation.

 

I would ask creationists to explain Penguins.

 

Distraff:

Radiometric dating is fatally flawed, based on many in academia. Below is info from just two such sources.

"More Bad News for Radiometric Dating
Geologists assert that older dates are found deeper down in the geologic column, which they take as evidence that radiometric dating is giving true ages, since it is apparent that rocks that are deeper must be older. But even if it is true that older radiometric dates are found lower down in the geologic column, which is open to question, this can potentially be explained by processes occurring in magma chambers which cause the lava erupting earlier to appear older than the lava erupting later. Lava erupting earlier would come from the top of the magma chamber, and lava erupting later would come from lower down. A number of processes could cause the parent substance to be depleted at the top of the magma chamber, or the daughter product to be enriched, both of which would cause the lava erupting earlier to appear very old according to radiometric dating, and lava erupting later to appear younger."
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html​

"Radiometric Dating
For many people, radiometric dating might be the one scientific technique that most blatantly seems to challenge the Bible’s record of recent creation. For this reason, ICR research has long focused on the science behind these dating techniques.

Along with scores of other Bible-believing geologists, ICR scientists have made key observations that compel us to reject the millions-of-years apparent ages that these techniques yield:

• First, rocks of known age always show vastly inflated radioisotope “ages.”
• Second, various radioisotope methods or even various attempts using the same method yield discordant ages more often than concordant ages.
• Third, many dating methods that don't involve radioisotopes—such as helium diffusion, erosion, magnetic field decay, and original tissue fossils—conflict with radioisotope ages by showing much younger apparent ages.

These observations give us confidence that radiometric dating is not trustworthy. Research has even identified precisely where radioisotope dating went wrong. See the articles below for more information on the pitfalls of these dating methods.
http://anthropology.msu.edu/anp264-...arbon-dating-a-closer-look-at-its-main-flaws/​

Run that by me again about the accuracy of radiometric dating, Distraff.

Alter2Ego

 

Distraff:

Nobody said the glass flasks and glass tubes were part of the reaction. You are purposely missing the point that Miller had to use supplies that were not available 4 billion years ago in order to do his experiments. Miller guided the outcome of the experiments by introducing not only glass tubes and glass flasks, but by he himself actively deciding when to heat the various chemicals, how high the heat should be, where the resulting water vapor and gases should go, etc. And you are conveniently forgetting the point of my argument: That without the intervention of an intelligent being, life could not exist. Miller proved this to be the case when he INTERVENED AND GUIDED THE OUTCOME of his experiments--during which he failed to produce life.

Alter2Ego

 

Scientist do guide experiments but only to simulate what would happen in the natural world. What really matter is what chemicals are mixing, in what environment, and at what heat. The flasks, heater, and tubes are simply there to simulate that scenario, and this could easily done with rocks and heating vents, but would be a lot messier and less measurable.

 

Lava erupting earlier would come from the top of the magma chamber, and lava erupting later would come from lower down. A number of processes could cause the parent substance to be depleted at the top of the magma chamber, or the daughter product to be enriched, both of which would cause the lava erupting earlier to appear very old according to radiometric dating, and lava erupting later to appear younger."
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html
[/QUOTE]

Nobody is denying that sometimes radiometric dating doesn't work in every case and that there are environmental conditions that may sometimes throw the date off. In fact, the reason radiometric dating is an art is because scientists have to determine whether there are error prone factors near the rocks being tested and try to select the right set of methods. Scientists can also see if a dating attempt is inaccurate by using multiple independent dating methods and comparing to other rocks in the same strata. Sometimes there are factors that will throw off the date but it is determined to be insignificant and will only throw it off by maybe 5-10%.

No evidence is provided here too. Radiometric dating is actually quite expensive and takes a lot of checking and time, so if scientists were throwing out half their dates, we'd all be hearing about it.

These so-called dating methods have been refuted many times by scientists. Most of these "methods" are creationists basically assuming a steady state in processes where such an assumption isn't warranted, unlike radioactive decay which is steady. Here is an article that quickly refutes these claims.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt/age.html
https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geology/soft-tissue-dinosaur-fossil2.htm

 

Distraff:

Exactly! Without the intervention of an intelligent being (the scientists in this instance), there would be no experiment and therefore no result. You are confirming what I stated in my OP, that without the intervention of an intelligent being guiding the outcome, nothing could ever occur. Similarly and on a much higher level, without the intervention and guidance of Almighty God Jehovah, the ultimate intelligent being, there could be no life. Why? Because abiogenesis theory (life coming to life by itself from non-life) has long been debunked.

Stanley Miller--and all other scientists, before and after him--failed to demonstrate abiogenesis despite the fact, as you admitted: "Scientist do guide experiments but only to simulate what would happen in the natural world."

QUESTION to #1 DISTRAFF: How did evolution's common biological ancestor come to life by itself so that evolution could supposedly proceed?

Alter2Ego

 

Distraff:

Now you are back-pedaling. You claimed earlier on that radiometric dating is reliable.

Numerous sources from academia say radiometric dating is flawed. Which brings us right back to the point I made earlier: that Stanley Miller was SPECULATING when he attempted abiogenesis in a laboratory environment--that he controlled--using glass beakers and other Paraphernalia that did not exist 4 BILLION years ago. It was a laboratory environment of early earth that Miller dreamed up, because no humans were alive 4 billions years ago to know what that environment was truly like. Even if radiometric dating was accurate--and it turns out it often is not--it would not have provided all of the information about what earth's early environment really was like. So your comment in paragraph 1 above that "you can tell a ton about that ecological environment and the atmosphere from these fossil clues," is what I expect from someone desperately snatching at straws.

And guess what? Despite the aid of his glass beakers, controlled heat, glass tubes, etc., Stanley Miller ended up producing only a few amino acids--nothing resembling life!

So back to the question: How did evolution's supposed common biological ancestor come to life by itself so that evolution could proceed?

Alter2Ego

 

Distraff:

You are hardly in a position to point fingers at "creationists," considering the fairytale you are giving me about how accurate science is with regards to radiometric dating.

FYI: I don't do empty links. If you want to make a point from a third party source, you need to briefly quote the relevant portions of your sources here, within you post, and then provide the weblink so that I can go to the website and confirm what you quoted.

Alter2Ego

 

Leftists, such as you, relentlessly pretend to be sophisticated, profoundly erudite, and better than anyone who does not march in lockstep with your atheism and Darwinian tautology. "Croco-ducks" is your term, not anybody else. "Religious fanatic" is anyone who disagrees with your archaic claims which biologists have spent billions of dollars trying to "prove" quite unsuccessfully. Four-winged flies that cannot survive in the wild? "We need more money, suckers."

http://TheEvolutionFraud.wordpress.com

 

1. This isn't even an argument against evolution! The important point here is that science is designed to identify and remove fraud as early as possible.
2. Noting that someone is a "young earth creationist" is an important aspect of that person's argument. Any discussion will be seriously affected by the difference between such a view and the view of those who recognize progress in cosmology. It's a point that can't be ignored - not an attack.
3. Total nonsense.
4. ?? Who does that?
5. Creationists point to the gaps as evidence of creation. Science points out that the gaps are no more than our incomplete record of the smooth change over evolutionary time. There is no hypocrisy in that.


That's TWO cites from wordpress today!! You need to reconsider your sources.

 

RE: DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?

⟴ Subquestion: Creationist 'vs' Evolution​

⁜→ WillReadmore, ChemEngineer, Alter2Ego, Questeer, et al,
(COMMENT)

◈ No matter what criticism you make of "Evolution," like nearly every other scientific-based concept, it is under development; it is not perfect. But it is undergoing evaluation by the scientific method.

◈ No matter what criticism you make of "Creationism," like all other supernatural beliefs, it is faith-based; not a concept subject to the scientific method.​

You cannot use "science" to disprove the "supernatural." Just as the "supernatural" to cannot disprove the "scientific."

........
Most Respectfully,
R

 

Not to be overly pedantic, but criticisms of evolution aren't affected by the way science is structured. They are affected by argumnt based on the logical assembly of facts (recorded observations). Science is an organized way of doing that.

And, theories of creationism are certainly subject to analysis by scientific method. Creation implies certain features in nature. People certainly can examine whether or not those features exist, wheher there are other explanations, etc.. Individuals can certainly reject that analysis on grounds of religious belief, but that's a slightly different issue.

I get the flavor, though. It's certainly true that there is no way to address the supernatural with a methodology such as science that is limited to observation of our physical universe.

I'd add that religion doesn't have a methodology capable of resolving questions of theology, let alone those of our physical universe - as evidenced by the gigantic variety of theroies of the supernatural.

 

RE: DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?
⟴ Subquestion: Creationist 'vs' Evolution
⁜→ WillReadmore, et al,

By considering creationism as a legitimate scientific theory simply is not the answer. The search for the knowledge of creation through the exercise of reason and the inspection of the world is the development of a hypothesis. The faith-based belief in Supernatural Creator of Everything is not the same as the empirical evidence that can be subjected to the Scientific Method.

(COMMENT)

The "Scienctific Method" (not science) is an organized way of doing that. IF it cannot be subjected to the scientific method, THEN it is not science. Once we agree on that, the question is answered.

◈ Creationism is taught in the "Supernatural Class".
◈ Evolution is taught in a "Science Class."​

........
Most Respectfully,
R

 

Absolutely.

A requirement of an hypothesis (and thus every theory) is that it be testable by scientific method.

So, no hypothesis can include God, because mankind can't test God. (Obviously, this isn't an insult. It's a recognition of the limits of humans.)

However, it is possible to test specific claims if the claim doesn't include god. Let's say a creationist were to claim that all life was put on earth at the same time. One could test whether all life appeared at the same time using scientific method.

 

Evolution and creation are only mutually exclusive if one is interpreting creation stories literally. From a Christian perspective (and I suspect from the perspectives of most other religions) text is more often accepted as being at least somewhat symbolic or metaphorical.

If a symbolic or metaphorical interpretation of creationism is allowed, it quite easily becomes the spiritual depiction of physical events, or, if you prefer, the description of spiritual events from a physical perspective.

For example: if we allow the possibility of God to experience or describe time differently than we percieve it, 6 days of creation could be billions of years. The time between the emergence of animals and their adaptation/evolution into humans could be a day or two to God.

 

This still ignores the possibility that the creation story of the bible is an allegory. It's old enough that it's probably hard to understand the cultural/religious meanings of the various elements or the exact message that was to be derived.

Another direction might be to suggest that god created the big bang in such a way that we are here today without requirement of further modification/tuning.

I don't see a reason to believe Genesis is a constraint on the methodology used by god. Surely it has more to do with communication of religious import than it has to do with physics.

 

You elevate "science" to a majesterium that is wholly unwarranted. I suggest that you read David Berlinski's book, The Devil's Delusion.

page xi I am a secular Jew. My religious education did not take. I cannot pray.


I have spent more years than I care to remember in studying mathematics and writing about the sciences. Yet the book that follows is in some sense a defense of religious thought and sentiment. Biblical verses are the least of it.

A defense is needed because none has been forthcoming. The discussion has been ceded to men who regard religious belief with frivolous contempt.


p xii ... their books are identical in their message: Because scientific theories are true, religious beliefs must be false. (Sam) Harris has conveyed the point by entitling an essay "Science Must Destroy Religion." His call to jihad cannot be long delayed.


In all this, two influential ideas are at work. The first is that there is something answering to the name of science. The second is that something answering to the name of science offers sophisticated men and women a coherent vision of the universe. The second claim is false if the first claim is false. And the first claim is false. Nothing answers to the name of science. And Nothing has no particular method either, beyond the immemorial dictates of common sense.



We have been vouchsafed four powerful and profound scientific theories since the great scientific revolution of the West was set in motion in the seventeenth century - Newtonian mechanics, James Clerk Maxwell's theory of the electromagnetic field, special and general relativity, and quantum mechanics.


p xiii These splendid artifacts of the human imagination have made the world more mysterious than it ever was. We know better than we did what we do not know and have not grasped.


p xiv The hypothesis that we are nothing more than cosmic accidents has been widely accepted by the scientific community. Figures as diverse as Bertrand Russell, Jacques Monod, Steven Weinberg, and Richard Dawkins have said it is so. It is an article of their faith, one advanced with the confidence of men convinced that nature has equipped them to face realities the rest of us cannot bear to contemplate. There is not the slightest reason to think this so.

 

Don't see how it being symbolic and/or metaphorical excludes it from being an allegory... it sounds to me like we're in total agreement.

 

RE: DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?
⁜→ Alter2Ego, et al,

Great contribution...

(COMMENT)

I find these definitions to be a fine point to use as a framework for the discussion. But I think that beyond the questions of "Supernatural 'v' Science" or the discussion of "Creationism 'v' Evolution" are the fundamental interrogatives:

◈ What is the origin of the "Life Force" (distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter) itself?

............................................(At this level of the question, it is not necessary
.................................................to consider the sentient form of a entity.)
​

◈ Can science (the systematic examination of the concept) recreate any form of "life" using any combination of elements on the periodic table?​

I tend to think that the real issue, masked behind the greater discussions of the "Supernatural 'v' Science" or "Creationism 'v' Evolution," is there an undisclosed component that is necessary to generate "life" (a self-replicating material)?

Or basically, can scientist put the elements of Hydrogen , Carbon , Nitrogen , Oxygen , and phosphorus , into a container and generate nucleic acids (biopolymers), forming adenine (A) , guanine (G) , cytosine (C) , thymine (T) , and uracil (U) , together with a superstructure of phosphates [(PO4)3-] and deoxyribose sugars (C₅H₁₀O₄) → which ultimately combine (H,C,N,O,P) to produce the self-replicating material (RNA/DNA) → generating genetic code for life to form? Oh, and we need a light source to radiate ≈ infrared → visible → through ultraviolet light (≈ 700nm to 300nm), and a fairly strong magnet to simulate the planet core. Any decent post-grad Chemical-Physics program would be able to do this. The unknown factor it time... Earth is 4.5 billion years old; with first life appearing at least 3.77 billion years ago. That means that we might have to cook our experiment for as much as 730,000 years. (There are a couple more things we have to consider and add, to make it realistic, but this posting is already much too long.)

If this is even remotely possible, or even feasible, then we can logically move forward to the greater question? Five simple basic elements, which are clustered on the Periodic Table, and form life. That is all we need. Somehow, the universe brought these five elements together on a rock that would ultimately form into a Class M (terrestrial) planet.

Now that I've bored you all to death, I'll go back to sleep.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

OK, let's pause there.

Science does NOT regard religious belief with "frivolous contempt".

The exclusion of the supernatural comes purely from humility, NOT contempt.

Science recognizes that there is no possibilitly of scientific method, science, addressing any issue of the supernatural.

I agree that various inividuals do express contempt for various ideas of the supernatural. And, I'd point out that ther are many whose ENTIRE FOCUS is the supernatural who also express contempt for the formations of the supernatural proposed by those other than themselves.

I'm really tired of people such as your author who make their money by fanning these flames.

And, I'd point out that for every Dawkins there is a Jeffress. So, trying to damn one while not damning the other is one more sign of just plain not getting it.

How about noticing that the Pope has done a better job with this question of science and religion?

 

My reason and faith tell me God created the universe and I'm not particularly interested in the details.