Raving Conservative

Google

Wednesday, May 03, 2006

Dismembering Evolution 6: Math

Math is almost universally considered to be the one thing that take a theory and actually prove it well enough to make it a law. It is also the tool most commonly used to determine if theories are even remotely possible, probable, or incredibly likely to be true. Science loves math for these specific reasons.

Yep science loves math for these reasons, but evolution hates math for the same reasons.

Mathematically speaking, anything that has 1 out of 10 to the 50th power of probability is considered impossible. I have heard it go as low as to the 1 chance out of 10 to the 46th power, and as high as 1 chance in 10 to the 62nd power. For the sake of argument let’s use the one that grants the greatest range of possibility, 1 times 10 to the 62nd power. For those of you who are unfamiliar with scientific notation, this number is this big: 1 chance in 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000. Any chance smaller than this is impossible.

Francis Crick, an Atheist and by no means a creationist or intelligent design supporter, a Nobel laureate for his work with James Watson in discovering the DNA helix did the following lesser known work. Inspired by the incredible intricacy of DNA and the amazing complexity of a single cell he set about working out the math to determine the probability of a single cell arising by mere chance. After much work that has been rechecked by mathematicians many times, he came up with a probability of 1 chance in 10 to the 200 power. For a better visual this number is this big: 1 chance in 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000. That is the odds of a single cell coming about by mere chance. As you can see, this is far beyond the upper limits of possibility. And that number is twice as big as the biggest named number, a 1 with 100 zeroes after it, called a Google (sound familiar? Tasty tidbit: According to Google there are 24,430,000,000 web sites with the letter a in them. This obviously does not include any websites in any language that does not use the letter A, but it’s a big number, and a tiny one compared to the numbers we are using here.). It is important to mote that every 0 at the end of a number makes the new number 10 times bigger than the last one. So 10 to the 63rd power is actually 10X less likely than the upper limits of impossible at 10 to the 62nd power.

As I understand it, Crick solved his dilemma with evolution by deciding that life on Earth must have extraterrestrial origins. That Earth was “seeded” somehow by life elsewhere in the universe. While it is tempting to attack the obvious logical fallacies in this type of thinking I shall spare him the humiliation as no serious scientist is willing to step up and support the idea that life on Earth is actual alien in nature.

Fred Hoyle came up with even more unlikely results of 1 chance in 10 to the 40,000. I’m just mentioning this as a side note since Crick’s work is damning enough on it’s own without being so easily attacked as an inflated number.

Given this, it is important to note that this work inspired another evolutionist to look into the odds of a creature as complex as a human coming about from pure chance from non-life through evolution in the entire time the universe has been around. Ted Holden found that the chances of humanity evolving from non-life are 1 chance in 10 to the 167,896th power. This is such an astronomically large number that it rivals the number of particles that can be found in entire universe.

So what do Darwinists do in the face of good math damning their pet theory? They make ridiculous statements like the following: Ted's sample calculation of the odds is invalid, because it presumes a simplest-replicator many orders of magnitude larger than abiogeneticists propose, and treats individual events as independent, which no abiogeneticist proposes. In short, those odds are a straw man (Wayne Throop).

Ah, I see. So the odds of a process happening at all are meaningless because, as you can see by the life all around you, it must have happened no matter what the odds are, so quit muddying up the waters with facts. All we have to do say it' actually easier. All we have to do is say that even simpler proteins are needed than we used to say. All we have to do is say that the smallest replicators are easier to have happen and that suddenly validates the idea that all of these simple replicators actually came together, formed a more complex replicator, then formed a living cell, and then tat cell evolved into the incredible diversity of life that has covered the Earth at various times throughout history. Who cares about the odds of all this stuff actually happening, as long as we can say that the simplest self replicating molecule isn’t quite as improbable as an entire human?

Even in this series, Darwinists have repeatedly made the claim relevant data is meaningless simply because the waters can be muddied enough to allow for reinterpretation of the data. This is, in my opinion, both sloppy and dishonest. It is also remarkably common when evolution is involved (and other politicized issues like climate change), and remarkably uncommon when ideology is left out of science. Can you imagine a doctor saying that a verified case of HIV isn't really HIV because this particular strain of HIV seems to replicate at a slightly faster rate in this patient, so it MUST be a new virus. How long before this man gets tossed out of medicine for incompetence?

Further delving into the math shows that out of the known amino acids there are 10 to the 390 possible proteins that can be made. However, out of this only 2 x 10 to the12th power are usable for life. the rest is unusable gibberish in living organisms, and by the simple lack of their use in living structures, it can be reasonably assumed that the inclusion of these 10 to the 378th power proteins is fatal in life. This reasonably explains why no new phyla have emerged following any of the great extinctions. Everything that can be used to make life was already being used, all else is dross. Why does this matter? Well, if so many proteins are available, how many unusable proteins are self replicating? I would assume none, but I also know of no proteins that are viable for life that are purely self replicating, though there may be a few. But even if we assume that out of the 2 x 10 to the 12th power proteins that life uses every one is capable of self replication (they are not, but let’s just go crazy here for a second) what mechanism would attract all of these proteins together to form a living cell? There is no answer to this question to date, and since the exceedingly generous conditions I have allowed are not reality, an answer is unlikely to be forthcoming. Even so, toss in just one fatal protein, and the entire project gets dead. All replication ceases to be.

There was a conference in England some years back where a bunch of biologists and mathematicians got together to try to prove the mathematical probability of evolution. It broke down into pure bickering and has never been repeated. This happened because every model the evolutionary biologists presented, when it was calculated out, was mathematically impossible. Even on repeated rechecks, and these mathematicians were not a bunch of Creationists or intelligent designers just out to destroy evolution, the math kept showing that every scenario, every theory, every mechanism, was simply impossible. Not one part of evolution help up to the math. So what happened? The Biologists kept telling the mathematicians that they were wrong and the math was wrong because evolution happened, it's just a fact. The mathematicians did many rechecks and concluded that the math was absolutely correct and that there is no way evolution could have happened; there had to be another answer, or another mechanism. So what did the biologists do? They continued to insist the math was wrong because the existence of life proves evolution happened. Very rational and mature of them I'm sure.

This event is not very well publicized. It is not well publicized because it casts doubt on evolution, and the only other theories besides evolution that are known today are ones that involve a God or godlike being making life. Since modern science has chosen to be antithetical to religion this is an unacceptable consequence. Amazingly, in their frantic defense of evolution, the Darwinists continue to refuse to even look for other answers. Is there another answer out there that does not include God? I don’t think so. But then I don’t know everything. There may well be another answer out there, and all research into finding it is being stifled by this idiotic insistence that evolution must be correct despite the obvious errors in the theory, the hostile math, and every other problem with the theory of evolution. Science is supposed to be self correcting, but how can it correct itself when it blinds itself to correction, or even additional possibilities?

In the realm of evolution this problem is purely theological. The Atheists need something to cling to that they use to say God does not need to exist. It is the justification they need to continue in their non-belief. That’s all fine and dandy, but don’t go trying to pass it off as science. Call it what it is. Call it your religion. It already has a name. It’s called Darwinism.

33 Comments:

  • Daniel -

    Wow, this is very interesting! For all the wrong reasons..
    If the Math said that Evolution had a 1:4, 1:100, or 1:100000 chance, you would shout it down using every Creationist trick in your arsenal - which means simply denying it over and over, or at most offering up some watered down, regurgitated tripe from some Creationist book you read that couldn't point to a valid source if it tried. You would probably say things like, "They changed the numbers to prove Creationists wrong.", or, "How can you put an equation to life and come up with a serious number that accounts for everything." (good argument, think I'll use that later) However, instead you embrace the Math as some long lost lover and offer to buy it dinner. Why?
    Because it supports what you want/need to believe. If it didn't you would block it out and never mention it, ignoring it as irrelevant, unprovable hype if ever mentioned by one of us.
    You see, we can't trust you as a source. Not because we know you are a Christian, and not because you are a Creationist, but because you can't be honest with yourself. You pretend the reason you want to disprove Evolution is because it's 'bad' science. We know better. If your fans here were honest, they would recognize the signs as well. It's all about picking and choosing the information that you want to present - and ignoring the rest.
    According to you, Mathematicians are suddenly the most trusted source in the universe. Their ability to slap together an equation that encompasses EVERYTHING is without question. You know, just compare two such equations and average them out... it's really that simple to account for everything. Everything.

    Now I just want to have some fantasy-like fun... you know, guessing... or what you would call a Theory.
    Let's just say for a second (later to be retracted, of course), that all this Math is correct. You yourself said,
    The most popular scientific theory is the Big Bang. In my last post I have allowed for the Big Bang to be true. Therefore, let’s assume the Big Bang is true. Let’s assume that all of the matter in the universe was once contained in an infinitely dense quantum anomaly that exploded, spewing forth matter and energy that ultimately formed the universe we know today.
    ...and therefore I will allow for your Math to be true - for this instance. Now let's combine the two.
    What would happen if the Big Bang were just an event that occurred in a series of similar events: Expanding universe, contracting universe, expand, contract, expand, contract... repeat.
    Now, let's imagine this happens 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000x's
    What's the chance of life appearing right here, right now? 1:1?
    Heck, you're the expert with all the Mathematician friends, you tell me.
    Of course, this is all just fantasy. Who knows what really happened? Afterall, that question is the only reason you can stand there with a big goofy grin and spew your criticism right? Scientists argue over this point, and that means blood in the water... attracting sharks like you - you know, the ones that stand in the gaps and shout loudly while covering your ears.

    If the scientists stop arguing over something as big as this, I'll question their sanity, their reasons, and their conclusions. But for now they are arguing about this ferociously, and therefore I know they are doing what they should be - attempting to get to the bottom of it. Science isn't throwing its hands up and just randomly giving us answers on this important question. They may never know the answer, and that's fine. All of this questioning and debate isn't a fault, it's the way of the world - and you stand there blithely attempting to present it as weakness when it is science's greatest strength.

    Oh well, you do your best with the limited sources you have presented yourself with.

    For those of you who will actually read it:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/
    abioprob/abioprob.html

    - Anonymous

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:02 PM  

  • Daniel: Math is almost universally considered to be the one thing that take a theory and actually prove it well enough to make it a law.

    Your very first sentence is wrong and your post goes downhill from there. Scientific laws and theories are two completely different things. Theories do not become laws with mathematical proof; they are separate concepts. A scientific law describes a natural process whereas a theory explains a process. Newton’s laws of gravity describe what happens under specified conditions, but don’t require a theory of gravity for them to be true. Gravitational theory explains why those things happen. The theory of evolution explains why… Oh forget it. What’s the point of constantly explaining this to you if you ignore everything we say?

    I asked you before you began this series to visit TalkOrigins and look through the Index of Creationist Claims and I implored you not to rehash these tired old canards, but you ignored that advice as well. Nearly everything about this latest post of yours is wrong. The premises are wrong, the mathematical methodology is wrong, the understanding of the biological processes is wrong and the conclusions are wrong. I’m not going to bother rebutting this nonsense myself because you just don’t listen to anything we say anyway. However, I urge you and your fellow creationist readers to visit the link Anonymous provided to see why this whole line of argument is irrelevant and just plain wrong.

    What I will do is reiterate my question from the end of the last post that you misunderstood for some reason. Your creationist readers could also ask themselves this question. I’ll try to word it unambiguously and more strongly.

    Is there any evidence that could possibly convince you that the theory of evolution is true? Yes or no.

    If you answer ‘no’ to this then you have closed your mind to the possibility that the theory of evolution is true, which signals a dogmatic belief in creation. If you answer ‘yes’ to this question then tell us the evidence that would convince you that the theory of evolution is true and we will try to provide you with it.

    In anticipation of you, Haximus or someone else asking me the converse questions by cleverly substituting ‘creation’ for ‘the theory of evolution’ or ‘false’ for ‘true’, I will answer both those questions now.

    What would convince me that creation is true? Well, first you would have to show me that God exists by providing sound material evidence of his existence. Then you would have to provide more evidence that shows that all forms of life were created in just four days and explain how biostratigraphy completely contradicts this assertion.

    What would convince me that the theory of evolution is false? You could provide evidence that shows that modern animals existed in Pre-Cambrian times. Consistently finding animals out of place in the fossil record would definitely mean that the current theory of evolution is false.

    So I am willing to believe that the theory of evolution is false and creation is true if you can provide me with evidence showing that to be so. Can you please answer my question in bold above and before I forget, could you please answer the question in the ‘Dismembering Evolution: 4’ comments that you ignored. Here it is again.

    If I have two choices, A and B, and God knows I will choose A, is it possible for me to choose B? Yes or no.

    By Anonymous cjb, at 1:57 AM  

  • Anonomys,

    "Wow, this is very interesting! For all the wrong reasons.." And it goes on.

    Your entire argument can be summed up thusly. "Sure you're right, but if you were wrong you would never bring this up." Wow, what a pointless argument. So you acknowledge that the math is right, but you don't like it and wish it didn't support me.

    You coninue on to berate the trust I am putin gin math, but what you fail to understand is that this trust comes from my scientific background, not my religious one. Scientifically speaking, math is the final word. If the math says no, and the is good, many experiments won't even start, and theories are supported with strong evidence or destroyed through mathematical impossibility.

    You bring up a purely speculative and utterly unprovable argument (common among Darwinists) stating that if the universe has contracted and expanded an insane number of times then it becomes far more likely that life will have come about through abiogensis and evolution. While it is mathematically possible that the universe has fully expanded and contracted with many Big Bangs over endless time, it is not possible to show that it has ever happened even once. This makes your argument one that requires a great deal of blind faith to accept.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 8:16 AM  

  • CJB,

    "Your very first sentence is wrong and your post goes downhill from there."

    You are contradicting yourslef. In the past you made the exact same assertion.

    "Newton’s laws of gravity describe what happens under specified conditions, but don’t require a theory of gravity for them to be true."

    True, but without the math backing it up it would be mere theory. It is the math that proves it. At least, that is what get's taught in the universities I have attended.

    "However, I urge you and your fellow creationist readers to visit the link Anonymous provided to see why this whole line of argument is irrelevant and just plain wrong."

    There is a problem with your entire paragraph leading up to this point. It is simply wrong. You place a large deal of trust in a website, that upon review, does not present solid evidence for much of it's claims. Any deeper research into the topics winds up refuting most if not every rebuttal that website puts up. Any simple analysis of what that website states unearths many logical and factual errors. I do not use it as a source simply because it is an unreliable one. For example, I did look into the arguments against the math I have pesented, and what I have seen is mostly double talk, hogwash, and irrationality. Just like the scientists at the convention I mentioned in this post, the Darwinists cannot accept anything that contradicts thier desired ideas and have demonstrated that they will deny truth outright with unprovable claims, or simple unsupported denial. This is why I brought math into the discussion. you call it a tired old canard, I cal it a good point to make. Let's suppose that the methodology for the math determining the impossiblity of human evolution is wrong and that it 100 times easier for humans o evolve tha is currently shown by the math. That just knocks 2 zeroes off the end of that ridiculously huge number. wanna call it a million times easier? That just knocks 6 zeroes off the end. The ods of human evolution would have to be mad a million, million, million, repeated a million times, easier to make it posible. Wrangle with that one for a bit.

    "Is there any evidence that could possibly convince you that the theory of evolution is true? Yes or no."

    The final intallment of this series will delve into posible support for evolution, but you won't like it.

    "Well, first you would have to show me that God exists by providing sound material evidence of his existence."

    You have already stated that any such evidence would only be accepted after what would ammount to a lifetime of research into the proof and only accepted if there is no other possiblity no matter how remote. Since remote possiblities are almost able to be dug up, for example, let's suppose someone decided to say that the regeneration of a limp that you saw withyour own eyes was actually the result of a latent gene in the human genome that can periodically be activated to cause what appears to be a miracuous cure. now let us supppose there is no evidence whatsoever supporting this statement. You would accept it because it alows to take God ot of the equasion.


    I am out of time. I shall answer the rest later.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 8:36 AM  

  • Daniel -
    Apologize to me now for misrepresenting everything I said. Right now.
    The fact of the matter is that this part of science is heavily under debate and you have chosen to accept only that which supports your side as true. That is the only reason why you trust this Math - a Math I do not support or deny or consider "right", but instead consider under strong scrutiny and deserving of more attention.
    I wrote:
    ..and therefore I will allow for your Math to be true - for this instance.
    Does that SOUND like I "acknowledge that the Math is right, but [I] don't like it and wish it didn't support [you]"?
    So dishonest. Don't people burn in Hell for lies like that?

    And when I say, "I just want to have some fantasy-like fun", that hardly means I am throwing out an idea that I would lean on. It was simply something I threw out as a possibility - one that you even say is "mathematically" possible (And since Math is the end all, or as you say, "math is the final word", that means it is true, right? Christ, I brought it up and I don't believe that!). There are a lot of possibilities in this field of study that are still under consideration. You even admit that a group of scientists gathered together and argued over it vehemently. However, you seem to think it is all sealed up nice and neat with a pretty bow with all the answers just soooooo obvious. This is why you can't be trusted. You misrepresent even what is so readily available to your readers, because you know they will take your side even when the evidence is so strong against you. This isn't science I'm arguing right now, Daniel, it is rhetoric. You are a liar.

    Now, apologize for your lies and misrepresentations right now or I'll do the one thing I should have done a long time ago... Ignore you.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:47 AM  

  • Oh, and while we wait for Daniel to apologize for his behavior... let's look at how he argues. He wrote:

    You place a large deal of trust in a website [talkorigins.org], that upon review, does not present solid evidence for much of it's claims. Any deeper research into the topics winds up refuting most if not every rebuttal that website puts up. Any simple analysis of what that website states unearths many logical and factual errors. I do not use it as a source simply because it is an unreliable one. For example, I did look into the arguments against the math I have pesented, and what I have seen is mostly double talk, hogwash, and irrationality.


    I love this! 'For example'... and then he says exactly what he had already stated. Nothing specific like you would expect from a 'for example', but just that it is "double talk, hogwash, and irrationality". See how specific he gets in disputing the critics? Somehow I doubt Daniel actually looked any deeper than a vague glance.. but I am just guessing (theorizing, as a creationist might say).

    He then goes on to say:
    Just like the scientists at the convention I mentioned in this post, the Darwinists cannot accept anything that contradicts thier desired ideas and have demonstrated that they will deny truth outright with unprovable claims, or simple unsupported denial.

    Blood in the water. If scientists debate/argue about the mechanisms involved in Evolution it means Evolution is flawed. If scientists debate/argue against something that might support creationism, it means they are "denying [the] truth", or in "simple unsupported denial". Science can't win when Daniel argues. Science does its job and it shows up, in Daniel's mind, as weakness to the theory (or you know, "guess").

    Rhetoric is fun. You should try it, Daniel.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:49 PM  

  • Anonmys,

    Misrepresented you say? well, let's look at what you said.

    "If the Math said that Evolution had a 1:4, 1:100, or 1:100000 chance, you would shout it down using every Creationist trick in your arsenal . . ."

    Nice assumption, unfounded, and utterly unprovable since the math happens to support me.

    "However, instead you embrace the Math as some long lost lover and offer to buy it dinner. Why?"

    For the same reasons you grasp at every staw you can try to support evolution. I believe my position to be right, and any (good) evidence that supports it is welcome.

    The next 2 entire paragraphs are personal attack where you ignore the facts presented in this post and spend some time on your soap box calling me a liar instead of adressing the facts I presented here.

    FOr your "fantasy fun" you presented a published theory regarding the nature of the universe. One supported by theorestical math and popularized by Steven Hawking stating that at some poin the universe should contract and collapse in on itself, which would allow for a new Bib Bang and so-on. You have placed a generally accepted mathematical theory in your supposition, so I adressed it. Of course, since you did ppresent it as pure speculationI couls have simply ignored it and the questions you followed it up with since you now appear to be saying that it was all just irelevant and was not meant to actually make a point, so how dare I treat it as a statement made to make a point!

    Of course, there is not one thing here thta goes against my previous response to you. The only item up for question, and therefore explanation, is my assertion that you were simply accepting the math as true. I made this statement based on 2 things. 1: Your only statement against the math itself was embedded in your stated fantasy, so I ignored it. 2: since you had no better argument than to attack my character and left the math, which is what the post was about, completely untouched it could be reasonably that you were accepting it as true if for no other reason than you had no alternative to present.

    You enter into your conclusion with the following statement: "If the scientists stop arguing over something as big as this, I'll question their sanity, their reasons, and their conclusions." and yet you ignore the fact that the scientists you are referring to are not arguing over the validity of evolution, but the mechanisms. Every scientists in America that argues about againstthe validity of evolution suddenly finds himself without grant money for any research and demonized as a Creationist or Intelligent Designer, as if such things were antithetical to all of science simply because they are not evolution. Yet, you do not question the methods, ethics, or sanity of the scientific community at large for refusing to look into the validity of evolution. This makes your very first sentece in your conclusion false. I shall not bother to go deeper into that part.

    Put simply it is my opinion that the only mistake I made was treating you comment, which was purely a personal attack that lacked any true substance, as if it were actually something to be dignified with a response.

    Further errors in you own ability to think become apparent when you make statements like this:

    "I love this! 'For example'... and then he says exactly what he had already stated. Nothing specific like you would expect from a 'for example', but just that it is "double talk, hogwash, and irrationality". See how specific he gets in disputing the critics? Somehow I doubt Daniel actually looked any deeper than a vague glance.. but I am just guessing (theorizing, as a creationist might say)."

    Let's pick this apart, shall we?

    If by nothing specific you mean that pointing out a specific part of your pet website, the math rebuttal, and pointing out that it is flawed is unspecific then you are right. That is so unspecific that no rational person could possibly go to the website and look at the math rebuttal to see what I am talking about. Especially since you have provided the web address at the end of your very first comment here. Perhaps I was mistaken in assuming that a rational thinker could simply go there and see it for himself.

    Then you go on to make a lame attempt at assaulting my competence and honesty by suggesting that maybe I never really actually bothered to read what was there. You do this, admittedly, utterly without proof, but you just had to slip in an unfounded attack again. You then use it as an opportunity to mock religious by saying that we dismiss theoies as mere guesswork. Well, such a statement exposes your own lack of knowledge and understanding about science. A guess is called a "hypothesis" not a theory. A hypothesis becomes a theory only after it has been tested enough to be elevated from th erealm of pure guesswork to something that may be true. Notice the "may be" in there. What amazes me is how Darwinists lose thier mind and start suing schools when the do something as simple as telling their students that a theory is not a fully proven fact and explaining that evolution is theory. but they have no problem with the fact that a theory is not a fully proven fact when mentioned outside the context of evolution. This is called a double standard. It is also callede intellectual dishonesty. It is also called hyppocrisy. It is also called suppression of ideas. It is a lot of things, all of them bad.

    "If scientists debate/argue about the mechanisms involved in Evolution it means Evolution is flawed."

    It means the are not even bothering to look at the validity of evolution itself and are simply searching for more ways to justify in the face of mounting evidence against it. It means that evolution is debatable enough to allow it to be questioned without lawsuits. It means that the entire theory of evolution still needs to be looked at critically and not blindly accepted as truth simply because science cannot concoct another answer at this time. It means that stifling debate and teching that allows evolution to be questioned is a desperate tactic by desperate ment who do not want a weak theory exposed to scrutiny because they know it will fail when examined thoroughly.

    You say science has shown up to do it's job, but it is actually being locked away to protect a religion of Darwinism.

    Finally, will I apologize for anything I have said? No. And you have some nerve demanding an apology after your extensive personal attack on me that conveniently avoided any factual substance of any kind. Had you bothered to present an actual argument of the facts I my answer would be different.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 10:41 PM  

  • CJB,

    "What would convince me that the theory of evolution is false? . .. "

    Seeing as how no rationl person would argue tat the criteria you have lain out is actually true there will be no attempts forthcoming to meet them for you. Of course, what you have just done is state that all evidence contrary to evolution that is outside that speific requirement is insufficient for you. Therefore, even Charles Darwin himself coming back from the dead, walking right up to you, and saying to your face "I have seen eternity, and I was wrong" would be insufficient evidence for you. by your criteria God couldwhisk you up to heaven for a quick talk where He explains everything about the creation of the universe to you in fine deatail, and that would not be enough. Of course, I'm sure you would just blame the whole thing on a bad biscuit or something, call it a hallucination, and go about your merry way. On more likelty terms, you are saying that any evidence showing that the mechanims of evolution do not work does not disprove evolution at all. to your way of thinking all you need is a new mechanism, and until someone can thoroughly dispove that one it is as valid as it needs to be to allow you to continue to think evolution works. This is backwards. You yourself have said many times in relation God that it is the job of the supporters to prove their side right. But fror evolution you are demanding that the detractors prove every idea about evolution wrong, no matter how cracked it may be before you you will even consider another possibility. Fine. in that case I suggest you prove that God does not exist, and if you cannot then that is proof that He exists. After all, turnabout is fair play after all, is it not?

    "Can you please answer my question in bold above and before I forget, could you please answer the question in the ‘Dismembering Evolution: 4’ comments that you ignored. Here it is again.

    If I have two choices, A and B, and God knows I will choose A, is it possible for me to choose B? Yes or no."

    I have referred you to the schools of thought on the whole predestination thing. I have suggested you look into it. And I have repeatedly answered this same question for you. One last time, and you would be well served not to ignore this again.

    God is not just everywhere, He is everywhen. Time means nothing to Him. Time is one of His constructs for this universe. He knows what you will do because He just saw you do it. He just saw you do it and He just saw you do everything else as if it were all right now, which, for Him, it is. As one who exists outside of tie it has no meaning for Him. This means that right now, 1,000 years in the past, and 1,000 years in the future are one if He wants them to be. He can look at you now and see what you do, then go back 1,000 years and watch you do it right now, and then go forward 1,000 years and watch you do it. Pick whatever number you like, it is all meaningless. If you read te Bible you will notice that anything God does not want to lay out a specific date for is simply "soon" and when clarification is finally given the response is "To Me 1,000 years is as a day, and a day is as 1,000 years." which is words from God's own mouth explaining that time is meaningless to him. So can you choose B instead of A? Yes, but you won't. Does God's foreknowledge of this affect this in any way? No, because it is foreknowledge, past knowledge, and watching you do it at the moment all at once. If you choose B does it make God falible? It would if you chose B, but you didn't/won't/are not. Does you choosing A obliterate free will? No. You made the choice completely on your own. God just sat there and watched you do it, and his omnipresence in both space and time allows him know it in the past and remeber it in the future as well. Sound complicated? It better, because it is, and with the limited ability of humanity to understand the nature of God there are almost assuredly some flaws in there somewhere, which does not mean that God is flawed, only tht my own understanding of Him is (shocker) imperfect. Again, I shall refer you to any book on Calvinism to get a much better explanation of how we can have free will while God already knows what we will choose than I am able to articulate in this short forum. At the same time I shall refer to any book on Fatalism to gain an understanding of the school of Christian thought says that everything I have just said is pure hogwash, and that we have no free will, and that everything we do is set before us from the creation of the universe ans we have no poer to change it, it is all as God commanded from th begining. Fatalist thought is very interesting for the way it deals with a perfect God forcing us into imperfect circumstances and bad decisions. Calvanism is interesting for the arguments it sets forth about how God can know the future without eliminating our ability to choose. I have presented one Calvanist theory on this, but there are more, and you would be well served to study them if you are sincere in your desire to know the answer to your question. Refusal to do this readig while you continue to pester me to repeat myself will be taken as proof that you never eally cared about the answr itself, but were merely hoping that if I answered it enough times you would find inconsistencies in my answers. Sorry to dissappoint you, but my answer remains unchanged. and again, read some book son Calvanism if you really want a better understanding of this than I am able to give you.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 11:20 PM  

  • CJB,

    I just went back and noticed that you asked this question after I had quit checking that discussion. I would like to address a staement you made.

    "If you answer ‘no’ to this question then we have no free will. If you answer ‘yes’ to this question then God is not infallible because I will choose B, thus rendering his knowledge imperfect."

    This is an untrue staement. it is untrue simply because you will not choose B even though you could. You can, you have the ability, but you simply will not do it. Therefore, your free will is left intact, and God's foreknowledge is perfect. Were you truly unable to see this very obvious answer?

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 11:25 PM  

  • Daniel: You are contradicting yourslef.

    How am I contradicting myself? I said your first sentence was wrong and the post goes downhill from there. It does. The rest of it is worse than wrong; it’s deliberately misleading.

    Daniel: True, but without the math backing it up it would be mere theory.

    This doesn’t even make sense. Newton published his law of gravitation in 1687, well before Einstein formulated his theory of gravitation. Theories and laws are independent. They serve different purposes.

    Daniel: Any simple analysis of what that website states unearths many logical and factual errors.

    Name one.

    Daniel: You place a large deal of trust in a website, that upon review, does not present solid evidence for much of it's claims. Any deeper research into the topics winds up refuting most if not every rebuttal that website puts up.

    What do you mean exactly by “deeper research”; reading books by creationist bozos like Jonathan Wells or did you actually read some of the 29 references written by real scientists supplied at the foot of the article? TalkOrigins contains articles written by professional scientists. They’ve spent years learning, investigating and researching the topics they write about. For instance, Ian Musgrave, the author of the article you so disparage, is a research scientist at the University of Adelaide in South Australia. He is a senior lecturer and holds a PhD. He’s done 25 years of research in biology and you think that you know the subject better than he does.

    Daniel: For example, I did look into the arguments against the math I have pesented, and what I have seen is mostly double talk, hogwash, and irrationality.

    Do you really think that you know better than the people who are actually trained in biology and mathematics? How is it then that they are the ones with the PhDs doing the research and publishing papers and you are not? Why haven’t you published your ideas showing that the papers they publish in Nature and Science are mostly double talk, hogwash, and irrationality? Did you tell the doctors, technicians and medical scientists treating your wife that they didn’t have a clue and that you knew more about IVF and biology than they did? What sort of person thinks and behaves the way you do?

    Daniel: The ods of human evolution would have to be mad a million, million, million, repeated a million times, easier to make it posible.

    You mentioned in your post that a probability of less than 1 in 10^50 is considered impossible. Very well, take a deck of cards and shuffle them then deal them all out in order. What is the probability that they would come out in the order you saw? I’ll tell you: it’s 1 in 8 x 10^67. But wait a moment, that’s nearly a million, million, million times less likely than 1 in 10^50. It’s impossible, right? Of course it isn’t; it just happened. The point is that evolution is not shooting for a predetermined goal. Humans aren’t an ultimate goal of evolution; we were just one possible outcome. You can’t look at the end point and say, “How unlikely is that?” because it didn’t have to happen this way. There are innumerable other possible paths that evolution could have taken. That is why this argument from improbability is meaningless and irrelevant.

    Daniel: The final intallment of this series will delve into posible support for evolution, but you won't like it.

    I imagine I won’t. It will probably fill me with dismay. I’m guessing you will admit that there is no evidence that could possibly convince you that the theory of evolution is true. If you can manage to ignore the overwhelming evidence there already is for the theory of evolution then there is probably no hope of your ever believing it. I only hope that some of your other readers, perhaps the younger ones, are not so far gone.

    Daniel: You have already stated that any such evidence would only be accepted after what would ammount to a lifetime of research into the proof and only accepted if there is no other possiblity no matter how remote.

    Really? Where did I state this? In your limp, pardon me, limb regeneration example I would not simply say that it was caused by some latent gene without any evidence to support that notion. In fact, I wouldn’t believe any wild claim without sound evidence to support it, including your wild claim that limbs spontaneously regenerate. This is the second time you’ve brought up this supposed example, but you’ve never done any more than vaguely assert that it happened. Show us some evidence.

    Daniel: Seeing as how no rationl person would argue tat the criteria you have lain out is actually true there will be no attempts forthcoming to meet them for you.

    I just gave you one example. There are many more things that would falsify the theory of evolution, but your creationist misunderstandings are not among them. While we are on the subject, you say no rational person would argue against biostratigraphy so how do you reconcile the creation myth with what biostratigraphy shows us? If creation were true then we would expect to see all organisms appearing together in the same strata, yet we don’t. How do you explain that?

    Daniel: Of course, what you have just done is state that all evidence contrary to evolution that is outside that speific requirement is insufficient for you.

    Of course, I’ve done nothing of the sort, but you now ramble on about more and more ridiculous things you assume I would do when you obviously have no idea how I think. Let me say again, if you can show me miracles for which the only plausible explanation is the existence of a god then I would be forced to believe that gods exist. If you can show me evidence that clearly falsifies the theory of evolution then I will accept that it is false. But again let me say that these obfuscations, misrepresentations and misunderstandings from creationists don’t cut it. There are, however, many things that would undeniably falsify the theory of evolution and if any of those are found to be true then I will cease to believe it—just like that. I would be a fool to maintain a belief in something that is contradicted by the evidence. Some other evidence that would falsify the theory of evolution would be a lack of biostratigraphy, true chimeras like mermaids or centaurs, a mechanism that prevents mutations from accumulating or observations or evidence of organisms actually being created.

    So, let me ask you another question now that I’ve given you some further examples of things that would falsify the theory of evolution.

    What evidence would falsify creationism?

    You go on and on about my question on free will then finally arrive at this.

    Daniel: This is an untrue staement. it is untrue simply because you will not choose B even though you could. You can, you have the ability, but you simply will not do it.

    Well, if I can choose B then I do choose B even though God knows I will choose A. Of course, I know what you are going to say. You will say that if I choose B then God knew I would choose B because he is everywhere and everywhen and he was there watching when I chose it so he has always known I would choose B. Fine, let’s leave it at that—I can see this is going nowhere.

    By Anonymous cjb, at 4:22 AM  

  • Here's my Mathematical Formula of How the Universe Was Created.

    The formula is the reversal of one over zero ( 1/0 ).

    The formula is the reversal of one over zero. Or zero over one. When the number “1” is cut to pieces,

    1/0 reaches such great number that is compatible to eons of time, and since time is energy the raw material to build the universe.

    What is time? Time is made of energy in wave “ frequency” this wave is created constantly, and comes in two sets “A” & “B” they are 180 degrees out of phase because of time delay.
    When time matured the A & B were united & the big BANG was established.
    The big bang must have happened many many times in the past & will happen in future.
    To reach time we experiences many pleasant surprises & obstacles.

    By YRM, posted on 05/05/06, Berkeley, CA.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:43 PM  

  • CJB,

    while there are many things to go over in your last comment I shal reduce it oa very few things that I bother yo address in this comment. first:

    "Name one."

    I'll do you better and name a bunch.

    Examine one of the first items you find in the evolution section of the Talk Origins website claiming that Evolution is both a fact and a theory. The word fact falls nowhere in the definition of theory, and is actually in conflict with the definition of theory. Observe, according to Webster's. "Theory: 1. Originally- a mental viewing; contemplation. 2. A speculative idea or plan as to how something might be done. 3. A systematic statement of principles involved [the Theory of mathematics] 4. A formulation of af apparent relationships or underlying principlesof certain observed phenomena which have been verified to some degree. 5. That Branch of an art or science consisting in a knowledge of it principles and methods rather than in its practice; pure as opposed to applied science, etc. 6. Popularly, a mere conjecture, or guess."
    It also goes on to give the following definition of a law as it applies to science. "Law implies an exact formulation of the principle operating in a sequence of events in nature, observed to ocur with unvarying uniformity under the same conditions [the law of conservation of energy]

    A you can see, the word "fact" appears nowhere in any description of a theory. The word "fact" is never even implied. the definiton of theory ranges from a gues to a well supported idea. This means that anyone claiming a theory to be fact eithe has a poor grasp of th eEnglish language, a porr grasp of science itself, or a serious lack of intellectual honesty. Talk Origins outs this theory is actually a fact claim front and center. Whereas, as you can see by the definitions given, which are in accordance with science as it is taught in every school and university in America, Theories are not facts, laws are facts. Theories are simply working models open to modifaction, reinterperetation, and even destruction should the evidence prove it wrong. Remember the old adage: A theory is never proven, it can only be disproven.

    So why do I put Math on a pedestal when it comes to science? It is the only thing capable of presenting a flawless formulation of how something in nature actually works.

    On an interesting side note, Steven J. Gould, in his senseless essay claiming that thories are actually facts goes on to say that there really are no actual facts at all. What a smart guy! Evolution is a theory, which makes it a fact, but there are no facts . . . oh my God, He's saying evolution is not a fact! Wait! I thought he was trying to say evolution is a fact, but how can that be if there are no facts? I love Steven J. Gould. He is the Darwinists favorite resource, and he is so filled with self contadictions ad nonsense that he is actually just plain funny to read. It makes me laugh to see the kind of idiocy and self contradiction Darwinists choose to follow.

    Take another quote from the very next article in the list, one called The Modern Synthesis of Genetics and Evolution. "Darwin's theory of natural selection helped to convince most people that life has evolved and this point has not been seriously challenged in the past one hundred and thirty years." While natural selection has not been seriously challenged, the implication that is the engine that drives evolution has. Yes, those most fit to survive are the ones who do survive. Has this ever been observed to cause serious morphological change that creates a new species? No. Rather it has only been shown to produce temporary changes that revert to their original state at the earliest opportunity.

    While the article goes to briefly explain that gene drift may be as important as natural selection in causing evolution it omits the following: Genetic research is actually creating more problems and questions for evolution that are as yet unsolved and are casting further doubt on evolution. For example, If evolution is correct then the genetic similarites between members of one family should be most similar to each other. SO a rabbit should be more similar to other members of rodentia than anything else in the world, and yet it would seem that they are more genetically similar to whales than rats. I'm getting ahead of myself here, I have an entire atricle coming up bout genetics, I just thought that you might want to ponder that one for a bit. And yet, the article I referencing her on Talk Origins is trying to say that genetics are actually shoring up evolution rather than confounding it. That is called intentionally misleading, AKA lying.

    The article "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution" relies entirely on the field of phylogeny, which has been shown to have some conflicts with the field of genetics. Many phylogenic similarites between species are being shown to be controlled by entirely seperate genes, which eliminates the validity of phylogeny simply because a similar appearing characteristic that is controlled by a dissimilar gene in a dissimilar location cannot be the result of common descent. Also, many apparent embryonic similarities, such as the famous "gill slits" are actually the precursors to entirely dissimilar structures in later development, which eliminates them as phylogenic similarities, but this artcle uses them as evidence despite the demonstrated invalidity of doing so. By ignoring genetic evidence and focusing purely on the increasingly discredited field of phylogeny the entire article becomes misleading, a lie.

    Another demonstrable inaccuracy from Talk Origins is this: "Birds eat the kind of moth they can see the best.

    In England before the Industrial Revolution trees are often covered with light colored lichens. As a result light moths were favored because they were hard to see on the bark of trees whereas the dark moths were easy to see; birds ate the dark moths. During the worst years of the Industrial Revolution the air was very sooty so tree bark was dark because of soot. Dark moths were hard to see whereas the light moths were easy to see; birds ate the light moths. As a result the dark moths became common and the light moths became rare."

    Ah. I see. so despite the fact that every picture, every citation of peppered moths resting on the tree trunks during the day has been proven to be faked or staged, and that this supposed "evidence" is fraulent as a result, and the proven fact that peppered moths do not rest on tree trunks, but rather on the underside of brances in the leafy parts of the trees where lichens are not particularly common, and despite the fact that the underside of anything is generally shielded somewhat from ash and soot coatings the peppered moth example is still valid, really, it is, trust us Darwinists. Give me a break. Try presenting evidence that is not a proven fraud.

    I could continue to pick that site apart article by article, deception by deception, contradiction by contradiction, but I will stop here because doing so is causing me to get ahead of myself in the series.

    So, tell me, in light of these demonstrated problems with the information on that site (and past demonstrated problems since you have provided other links in the past that I have exposed problems with), and the obvious, demonstrable lack of logical reasoning demonstrated by one of evolution's most revered apologists, Steven J. Gould, are you still going to waste everybody's time by insisting they read and trust that silly, inaccurate website?

    Now, in reference to your last statement.

    "Well, if I can choose B then I do choose B even though God knows I will choose A."

    No, you won't chose B. The only way to choose anything other than the choice God forsaw is for you actually know what God forsaw ahead of time. Since you do not know you have no ability to take evasive measures to try to prove God wrong. Your entire premise is flawed by this simple fact that I have given you ample time to realize on your own, but you are apparently incapable of reasoning it out without needing me to point out the obvious. Feel free to spend your life second guessing yourself in an attempt to make a choice didn't forsee. If you do just be aware that God already saw it and already knows what direction you will choose to take. You cannot win.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 7:42 PM  

  • Anonomys,

    A fine theory, and a completely unprovable one. Just the way the Darwinists like them. Sure the math says it could be, but there is no way to tell if this is the very first iteration of the universe or the billion, billion, billion, billionth. Hence the unprovable part.

    It also ignores a simple fact of physics. Without matter there is no time. Time cannot be the engine that created matter.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 7:47 PM  

  • Daniel,

    Let’s look at your complaints about the TalkOrigins articles. It would have helped if you had provided links to the articles you complained about so that I could be sure what you were discussing. Never mind, I’ll do it. Let me know if I’ve selected the wrong ones.

    Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

    I don’t see how anyone can misunderstand the first paragraph of the article where it clearly explains what is meant by the fact of evolution and the theory of evolution. Evolution is a change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time. This happens. It is a fact. The theory of evolution explains how this change happens. The fact of evolution is the observed change over time; the theory of evolution is an explanation of the change. What is so hard to understand about that?

    The Modern Synthesis of Genetics and Evolution

    You would do well to read this article again. You seem to have missed some salient points. You say that the article mentions natural selection and briefly mentions genetic drift. Did you miss this section?

    The major tenets of the evolutionary synthesis, then, were that populations contain genetic variation that arises by random (ie. not adaptively directed) mutation and recombination; that populations evolve by changes in gene frequency brought about by random genetic drift, gene flow, and especially natural selection

    So the article talks about the four basic mechanisms of evolution: mutation, genetic drift, gene flow and natural selection.

    Daniel: SO a rabbit should be more similar to other members of rodentia than anything else in the world, and yet it would seem that they are more genetically similar to whales than rats.

    That is called intentionally misleading, AKA lying.


    Where on Earth does it say this in the TalkOrigins article? Are you just making this stuff up or is someone feeding you this nonsense? I think the one lying here is the one who told you this nonsense. Rabbits are not members of Rodentia, they are part of the family Leporidæ in the order Lagomorpha. However, if you check that link, you will find that genetic studies have shown that they are, in fact, more closely related to rodents than whales. Look at this cladogram for Eutheria and you will see that Lagomorpha is closely related to Rodentia and some genetic distance from Cetaceæ. Yes, I know that diagram is out of date, but it is the best I could find on the web at short notice. And yes, I know that this branching order is still controversial, but perhaps that means you should do a little more research before you post more nonsense like this on the front page for all the world to see.

    29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

    Daniel: The article "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution" relies entirely on the field of phylogeny

    By ignoring genetic evidence and focusing purely on the increasingly discredited field of phylogeny the entire article becomes misleading, a lie.


    Really? A quick glance at the link above shows that it speaks about much more than just phylogeny. It has a whole section on the molecular evidence. Were you stuck in a subsection instead? Of course, this single article doesn’t embody all the evidence for evolution by a long shot. The TalkOrigins site is just a central repository for information and discussions on evolution. You really need to read the actual papers in the references on each page. Most of them can be found at the NCBI.

    Daniel: Another demonstrable inaccuracy from Talk Origins is this: "Birds eat the kind of moth they can see the best.

    I cannot find this quote in the TalkOrigins article on peppered moths, but that’s beside the point because I think your following diatribe is not actually based on this article, which gives quite a fair and balanced view, but instead it is a regurgitation of Wells’ misleading arguments. Read the TalkOrigins article.

    Daniel: So, tell me, in light of these demonstrated problems with the information on that site

    are you still going to waste everybody's time by insisting they read and trust that silly, inaccurate website?


    I think I’ve shown above that your complaints are unsupported and probably the result of your misunderstanding (again). Everybody here would learn far more by reading the TalkOrigins site and its references than they would by reading the creationist tripe on which you rely.

    By Anonymous cjb, at 2:50 AM  

  • CJB,

    "I don’t see how anyone can misunderstand the first paragraph of the article where it clearly explains what is meant by the fact of evolution and the theory of evolution"

    Well, you obviously have. I find it fascinating that you are willing to twist your own logic in order to accomidate an iogical argument. you want to call evolution a fact? Okay, run a lab experiment where, without direct gene manipulation, natural selection is run far enough to create an entirely new species. like maybe getting a new kind of eagle from a sparrow. This experiment must be done using real animals, computer simulations are invalid. do this and you can can call evolution a fact. Otherwise, it is unproven, ans you yourself are obsessed with saying, there is no proof, only evidence. You must find proof to elevate a theory to a fact. Until then, anyone who calls evolution a fact is just making assumptions, or is demonstrating a religious dedication to an uprovable theory.

    Furthermore, just look at your own words "Evolution is a change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time. This happens. It is a fact. The theory of evolution explains how this change happens"

    Let's look at this shall we?

    Riddle me this: Since when are natural selection and evolution the same thing? Natural selection results in a change of alleles within a species, but has not been shown to cause that species to actually evolve into a new one. By the vague definition of "Change of alleles over time" we are left to conclude that evolution does nothing at all. Just look at humanity. We have multiple races based on geographic regions. Since you yourself have agreed that calling the different races of human different species is absolutely ludicrous thjis makes a fine example. Are you willing to say that the different races are actually evolutionary paths to seperate species? If so, what does the current trend of racial intrerbreeding mean to this assertion? does racial interbreeding count as evolution, or as counter-evolution? Racial interbreding is causing massive changes to alelles in a very short period of time within certain populations. For example, my own entirely European ancestry (with a little Native American thrown in 3 generations back) is now mixed with my Wifes African ancestry in the chilren we are currently expecting. Do you call this evolution? Furthermore, you have stated that evolution runs both ways, that it doesn't matter tha t the net genetic change in a species is zero as long as there are periodic fluctuations within the population. This is a nonsense argument as any preschooler can see. If the net change is zero specification cannot happen and evolution is dead. Without specification no new species arise, which is exactly what evolution is supposed to explain.

    See? You don't even know what evolution is. Evolution is change over time (cal it a change in alleles if you want) that ultimately results in the rise of new species. All else is merely adaptation within a species. You keep misdefinign evolution if you awant to, I know it makes it easier oto argue in favor of evolution if all you have to show is that genetic frequency within a species fluctuates, but that would be a misleading argument.

    Let me take this time to mention where we have some common ground in this debate. We agree that gentic frequency within a species happens, but we disagree on what it means. You point at it and say "evolution" I look at it and say "How can it be evolution if the change is only fleeting? Where are the new species that evolution is supposed to produce?"

    We agree that simple amino acids can be produced onder the proper circumstances in nature. You look at this and say "The seeds of life!" I look at is and say "They don't last long enough in nature to be able to combine with others to form proteins."

    The big difference between us may not be anything more than the fact that what you see answers your questions, and I look at the same stuff and have more questions. I ask to see it do waht you claim, you just take it on faith that it will do what you claim. There is another group of people who take stuff on faith that you berate and have a low opinion of. Who were they again?

    "but that’s beside the point because I think your following diatribe is not actually based on this article"

    First off, I only gave the first sentance of a ead in to a longer atricle that claimed that pretty much everything regardng the now disproven indicator of pepperd moths is actually true. How you could possibly not find it when the link was 1 or 2 links down from the first article that you managed to find quite easily I cannot understand. the links to every article I referenced are on the same doggone page. It's nice that you want to assume that my argument isn;t based on the article. It is, and it is based on the fact that the article is entirely misleading and attempts to renew credence in a scientific fraud.

    To prevent any further confusion for you I suggent you go to the talkorigins homepage. Click the browse the archive link. then click the evolution link. that will open the page that has every article I referenced. Lemme guess . . . the progression was too logical for you to follow, that's why you couldn't find it before? Of course, I'm sure that naming the atricles for easy reference just confused things.

    "Really? A quick glance at the link above shows that it speaks about much more than just phylogeny. It has a whole section on the molecular evidence. Were you stuck in a subsection instead?"

    No I wasn't. The section on molecular evidence completely ignored everything I mentioned to be problems with phylogeny and genetics. Had you bothered to read the atricle rather than just looking at the table of contents for it you would already know this. Do try to actually know what you're talking about when you try to counter my arguments.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 10:43 AM  

  • Daniel: Lemme guess . . . the progression was too logical for you to follow, that's why you couldn't find it before? Of course, I'm sure that naming the atricles for easy reference just confused things.

    Good grief, Daniel; would it have killed you to provide an actual link to your starting point? If you don’t know how to put links into comments then read this. If you do know how to put links into comments then please do so in the future out of consideration for others and to avoid the sort of confusion we are having at the moment. If you had just given me links to the articles you were complaining about, it would have saved us both some time.

    Daniel: See? You don't even know what evolution is. Evolution is change over time (cal it a change in alleles if you want) that ultimately results in the rise of new species. All else is merely adaptation within a species. You keep misdefinign evolution if you awant to…

    Now that I know where you are starting from, I’m amazed that you didn’t look at the article immediately above the first one you chose to attack. Please read What is Evolution? for a definition of the term evolution. Once you do that, you should be able to see why scientists say that evolution is a fact. I think the problem you are having is caused by a confusion over the definition of the term ‘evolution’. From now on, please use the definition that scientists use rather than popular misconceptions or your personal misunderstanding of what the term means. When people read that definition of evolution, they will see that your series so far has been nothing more than an attack on what you misunderstand evolution to be. It has nothing to do with Darwin’s philosophy, cosmogony, abiogenesis or your misunderstandings about speciation.

    Daniel: How you could possibly not find it when the link was 1 or 2 links down from the first article that you managed to find quite easily I cannot understand. the links to every article I referenced are on the same doggone page.

    Well, if your starting point is here then it isn’t obvious to me to which article you refer. I’ve looked through the ones you allude to, but I can’t see anything to do with peppered moths. If you would please just provide a link to the actual article, I may be able to respond to your complaints.

    Daniel: The section on molecular evidence completely ignored everything I mentioned to be problems with phylogeny and genetics.

    Sorry, I probably confused you with my last response to your complaint. I thought you were speaking about morphology, but I just followed your lead and used ‘phylogeny’ in my response to you. Morphology is only one line of evidence supporting an organism’s phylogeny; genetics and ontogeny are other lines of evidence.

    Daniel :The article "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution" relies entirely on the field of phylogeny, which has been shown to have some conflicts with the field of genetics. Many phylogenic similarites between species are being shown to be controlled by entirely seperate genes, which eliminates the validity of phylogeny simply because a similar appearing characteristic that is controlled by a dissimilar gene in a dissimilar location cannot be the result of common descent.

    It really seems to me that you are speaking about morphology here, not an organism’s phylogeny. If you are speaking about phylogenetics then this paragraph doesn’t make sense because genetics is part of phylogenetics.

    If you are speaking about morphology then could you please give me an example that illustrates your complaint. For example, could you please show me an instance where similar morphology brought about by dissimilar genes is actually taken to indicate relatedness.

    Daniel: Also, many apparent embryonic similarities, such as the famous "gill slits" are actually the precursors to entirely dissimilar structures in later development, which eliminates them as phylogenic similarities, but this artcle uses them as evidence despite the demonstrated invalidity of doing so.

    Again you seem to be confusing morphology with phylogeny. But the article is not making a case that pharyngeal pouches are morphological evidence for evolution. The point here is ontogeny.

    Daniel: By ignoring genetic evidence and focusing purely on the increasingly discredited field of phylogeny the entire article becomes misleading, a lie.

    And again, you seem to be confusing morphology with phylogeny. Phylogenetics isn’t discredited. Phylogenetics is the scientific discipline concerned with describing and reconstructing the patterns of genetic relationships among species and among higher taxa. Genetic evidence is part of phylogenetics.

    By Anonymous cjb, at 12:37 AM  

  • CJB,

    "Please read What is Evolution? for a definition of the term evolution."

    I have read it. I know full well that it widens evolution to the broadest possible definition. If you want to claim that evolution is nothing but changes in genetic frequency you have that right, but you know full well that that is not the crux of what evolution is, and that it's also not what this series is about. Evolution argues that these alterations in frequency somehow cause entirely new genes to appear resulting in new species. No species can evolve into another one without such massive genetic change that it ultimately bears little resemblance to the precursor. In all of you r arguing ove how you want to define evolution you have been deliberately ignoring this simple fact in an atempt to get me to conceed that the definition you are using is correct. Here's the problem with that: the definition you are trying to use is relatively new. It's a redefining of what evolution is in an effort to make it more acceptable scientificaly, and therefore make the controversial part of new species evolving from old ones more acceptable too. It is also such a broadened defenition that it confuses the engine of evolution with evolution itself. the engine of evolution is natural selection/mutation/alterations of the frequency in alleles that allows for evolution to give rise to new species. This is typical of the Darwinist movement. It demonstrates the kind of illogical twisting of facts and definitions that characterizes the Darwinist movement. It's tedious to watch something so ideological and religious at work while pretending to be science.

    Now for the actual defintion of the word evolution according to Webster's:

    Evolution-
    1: A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.
    2: The process of developing. Gradual development.
    3: Biology.
    a: Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
    b: The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.

    The other defintions had nothin gto do with biology.

    But compare this to your link.

    1- "In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."

    2- Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.

    3- "In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."

    before turning honest, and amore accurate with the following 3 definition:

    4: "evolution: The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years."

    5: "evolution: ...the doctrine according to which higher forms of life have gradually arisen out of lower.."

    6: "evolution: ...the development of a species, organism, or organ from its original or primitive state to its present or specialized state; phylogeny or ontogeny"

    The last being a definiton from a different edition of Webster's than I have.

    Now, as you can see, there are many supposed definitions in that article. The first ones are all inaccurate descritions, opinions not officially recognized by the institutions that assign definitions to words. The last 3 agree with me about what evolution is. You have continually argued that evcolution s nothing but a change in alleles. As you can see, the only way for that argument to be accurate is to fudge the facts and ignore everything that evolution is in favor a softball definition that lacks controversy simply because it describes a process everybody acknowledges happens. Alleles do alter in frequecy all the time, but this falteration in frequency has yet to be shown to actually give rise to evolution. Evolution of course being changes that result in the development of new species, just like I have been aguing all along. Of course, the kind of self deception and/or intellectual dishonesty you have been displaying with you constant misdefining of terms is perfectly normal for a Darwinist.

    "I’ve looked through the ones you allude to, but I can’t see anything to do with peppered moths."

    Good Lord man! Are you blind that you couldn't see the article with the words "Peppered Moths" in the title?

    "It really seems to me that you are speaking about morphology here, not an organism’s phylogeny."

    First, let's get the actual definitions on the table according to Webster's:

    Phylogeny-
    1: The evolutionary development and history of a species or higher taxonomic grouping of organisms. Also called phylogenesis.
    2: The evolutionary development of an organ or other part of an organism: the phylogeny of the amphibian intestinal tract.

    Morphology-
    1:The branch of biology that deals with the form and structure of organisms without consideration of function.
    2: The form and structure of an organism or one of its parts: the morphology of a cell; the morphology of vertebrates.

    Now for an acknowledgement, I did get my terms mixed up. I used phylogeny, when I was actually talking about . . .
    Homology-
    1: The quality or condition of being homologous.
    2: A homologous relationship or correspondence.

    So forgive this error. In my earlier criticism simply replace every instance of the word phylogeny with Homology. The article contains a great deal of information that, while not directly refrenced to homology, is exactly the same as homology. By comparing structures that appear similar at some point of development the author delves directly into the discredited field of homology. I have an entire article on homology coming up soon.

    However, the complaints I raised regarding genetics and phylogony still remain because the author of the atricle is making the same argument that homology does. That similar structures come from a similar geneic history. There are demonstrable cases whee this is most definitely not the case, and all others that may be the case must first have common ancestry proven before the argument can be legitimately made that they arose from the same genes in a common ancestor.

    "And again, you seem to be confusing morphology with phylogeny."

    No. He still did not address the problems genetics has rased with any field that seeks to compare structures and call them the result of common descent. I also did not see any genetic evidence presented there were significant genetic similarities in let's say . . . the intestines of mammals, fish, and invertebrates. by showing conclusively that the more primitive digestive tracts are composed of what essentially amounts to a partial genetic code for the more highly developed ones some strong credence could be to the whole Genetics support phylogony statement. If such evidence existed the author most certainly would have given it because it would provide such a powerful argument. Instead, he took the direction that has already been shown to be inherreently flawed.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 8:15 AM  

  • Calling all readers… Help, please.

    Due to Daniel’s inability or unwillingness to provide a link to an article he is discussing, I would like others to see if they can find it for me, please. Daniel has supposedly given directions to find it, but I can’t see what he is talking about. Could you all please follow his directions and tell me where I am going wrong.

    Daniel: To prevent any further confusion for you I suggent you go to the talkorigins homepage. Click the browse the archive link. then click the evolution link. that will open the page that has every article I referenced.

    So, go to the TalkOrigins home page, here. Click the ‘Browse the Archive’ link. Okay, I see that and it takes us here. Then click the ‘Evolution’ link. I see that as well. It’s in the column on the left and it takes us here. Now it appears that we are on the page that has all the articles to which Daniel refers. There’s “Evolution is a Fact and a Theory” and right below it is “The Modern Synthesis of Genetics and Evolution”. Three links below that is “29+ Evidences for Macroevolution”. All of these are more or less where Daniel said they were so I think this is the correct page. But now Daniel say this:

    Daniel: First off, I only gave the first sentance of a ead in to a longer atricle that claimed that pretty much everything regardng the now disproven indicator of pepperd moths is actually true. How you could possibly not find it when the link was 1 or 2 links down from the first article that you managed to find quite easily I cannot understand. the links to every article I referenced are on the same doggone page.

    So, one or two links down from the first article I found are “The Origin of Species” and “Macroevolution” and I don’t see anything about peppered moths there, but apparently this article is “on the same doggone page”. Now Daniel follows that up with this.

    Daneil: Good Lord man! Are you blind that you couldn't see the article with the words "Peppered Moths" in the title?

    Well, either I must be blind or my browser (Firefox 1.5.0.3) is hiding the link from me because I cannot see, and my browser cannot find, the words ‘peppered’ or ‘moths’ anywhere “on the same doggone page”.

    For some reason Daniel refuses to supply a link to this article, which would immediately solve the problem, so I’m asking if anyone else can find the article, please.

    By Anonymous cjb, at 4:16 PM  

  • Okay, Daniel, while others are helping me find the ‘peppered moths’ article, let’s talk about your misrepresentation of the term ‘evolution’.

    Daniel: If you want to claim that evolution is nothing but changes in genetic frequency you have that right…

    It isn’t me claiming this. This is how scientists define the term ‘evolution’. The fact that you are using a distorted definition of the word is not my problem; it is something you need to correct yourself. This definition of the word is what scientists mean when they say evolution (that’s evolution per se, not the theory of evolution) is a fact. The frequency of alleles in a population does change over time. It has been observed. There’s no getting around it; it’s a fact. You’ve previously agreed that this phenomenon occurs so I think the only reason you are having a problem with it now is because it is actually called ‘evolution’.

    As the web page states, this definition encompasses everything from minor changes within a species to totally new species being formed. There is no limitation on the definition of the term to apply it only to the cases of new species being formed, but it does cover this situation. Given the four basic mechanisms of evolution: mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection, there is nothing to prevent minor changes accumulating into major changes such as the formation of new species over long time spans (thousands of millions of years). So evolution, per se, is a fact.

    Daniel: Here's the problem with that: the definition you are trying to use is relatively new.

    I see. So you are saying that you are using outdated concepts and you are not up with the latest thinking.

    Daniel: Now for the actual defintion of the word evolution according to Webster's:

    Evolution-
    3: Biology.
    a: Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.


    This definition (3a) is saying exactly the same thing as the definition in the article. What’s your problem? You seem to want to insist that evolution can only be described as the formation of new species, but that isn’t how it is defined. The definition does, however, allow for it to include the formation of new species. So then you keep trying to say that speciation has never been observed, but that simply isn’t true. Read this and this for some examples and you could read some of these 2,612 papers for some further evidence. There are hundreds of thousands of papers in the NCBI database that provide evidence supporting the theory of evolution, but it seems that no amount of evidence will convince you that the theory of evolution is true. Yet, perversely, you accept the creation myth without a shred of sound evidence supporting it and I’m guessing that nothing could sway you from that belief.

    By Anonymous cjb, at 1:15 AM  

  • CJB,

    "It isn’t me claiming this. This is how scientists define the term ‘evolution’."

    That very same gives multiple definitions, but the one you continue to use is a actually a generalization presented by one group of scientists. It is also a comlete redefinition of evolution and you know it. This redefinition is nothing more than an attempt to religitimize evolution by saying it encompasses events that it does not. Evolution MUST involve long term permanent change or it is not evolution. No net change is stagnation, which is the opposite of evolution. All supposed instances of evolution in action that have been observed have all reversed themselves to their original state at the earliest possible opportunity. This means no net change, hence stagnation. You want to say evolution goes both ways? Fine. By your own reasoning when can we expect birds to devolve back into dinosaurs?(Impossible since they did not evolve from dinosaurs in the first place). In fact., when can we expect any modern animal at all to revert to a more primitive ancestral form? Do I hear never? But evolution goes both ways, right?

    Quit trying to present deceptive evidence, like redefintions of words to try to confuse the sunbject. You know full well that without speciation there is no evolution, and all of evolutonary theory comes crashingdown around your ears. So quit being a pansy hiding behind your own confusion and misunderstanding and man up to the facts.

    "As the web page states, this definition encompasses everything from minor changes within a species to totally new species being formed."

    As the web page also states, this is one of multiple definitions that are being ued by different parts of the scientific community. Quit treating it like it's THE definition. On top of that, I have shown you the definition as it is acceptably used within the English language, aka THE defintion. of course, your response is to hide behind an article where exactly 1 scientist is mentioned using the definition you favor.

    "This definition (3a) is saying exactly the same thing as the definition in the article. What’s your problem?"

    My problem is that you have been arguing that any alteration in the frequncy of alleles, no matter how temporary is evolution, which is a lie. It also deceptive in that you are attempting to evade the speciation argument, which is absolutely neccessary for evolution to be possible. Without speciation there is no evolution. You cannot ignore this fact, and you continue to attempt to do so by saying something like "well, we don't really NEED speciation to prove evolution, all we REALLY need to do is show that the frequency of preexisting alleles fluctuates within a species and we can call that evolution even though it does not result in speciation according to every evidence we have observed to date."

    Come on man. You know as well I do that this argument is bogus.

    "NCBI database that provide evidence supporting the theory of evolution, but it seems that no amount of evidence will convince you that the theory of evolution is true."

    After 130 years of a large population of people trying desperately to prove evolution the surprising thing is that are not actually millions. Personally, I look to evidence, not to hundreds of thousands of papers that are largely repeating themselves. I can say this because the are not hundreds of thousands of seperate bits of evidece supporting evolution, so a lot of it is simply reexaming and redefining the same evidence over and over. And if you really want to waste your entire reading them all you will find many contradictions. But if you want to use numbers as legitimacy then consider the following:
    1- There are approximately the same number of papers criticizing evoluiton, and yes, scientists are in the mix.
    2- There are million sof papers discussing the evidence for the existence of God. Since there is so much evidence that it has spawned so many papers it must be so overwhelming that we can call God a fact.
    3- Since the evidence for God is so overwhelming, the Darwinist view of evolution must be wrong.
    4- Since the Darwinist view of evolution is wrong the only remaining theories of life are Creation and Intelligent Design.
    5- Since classical creation eliminates evolution in all of it's form, the only remaining theory that holds any validity to the scientific evidence (assuming of couse that is 100% correct and every criticism is 100% wrong) is Intelligent Design.
    6- Since Intelligent Design is true there MUST be a God.
    7- Since God truly exist I suggest you pick a religion soon.

    Of course, this is just the type of arguing I have been watching you do in this series, and that I have been watching other Darwinists do for years. When you really distill it down it doesn't provide much of an argument, does it?

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 8:51 AM  

  • Daniel: After 130 years of a large population of people trying desperately to prove evolution the surprising thing is that are not actually millions. Personally, I look to evidence…

    After 2,000 years of searching for evidence to support the existence of God, not a shred has been found. You don’t look to evidence to support your beliefs at all; you look to faith. If there was evidence, you wouldn’t need faith; the evidence would speak for itself.

    Daniel: There are million sof papers discussing the evidence for the existence of God. Since there is so much evidence that it has spawned so many papers it must be so overwhelming that we can call God a fact.

    Since the evidence for God is so overwhelming, the Darwinist view of evolution must be wrong.


    The problem with these statements is that they are just plain false. Present some of this overwhelming evidence if you can and try not to rely on false dichotomies and arguments from incredulity. I expect you to produce the same sort of evidence that supports the theory of evolution. It should be clear and unambiguous; the result of observations or experiments; and tested and verified.

    By Anonymous cjb, at 6:36 AM  

  • CJB,

    "After 2,000 years of searching for evidence to support the existence of God, not a shred has been found."

    100% false. The evidence is overwhelming, and yet people like still deny Him. It's okay though, God said that He would afflict the world so that men, seeing Him, still would not believe. As your refusal to believe simply because you cannot test God empirically shows. There is a reason that intellectuals throughout the ages have examined the evidence and concluded that there MUST be a God whether they want to believe in Him or not. I have not delved into this subject here simply because the presentation would require years to compile and write out, and that kind of effort belongs in a published book, not a blog. By the way, there are a great many books, thousands of different ones worldwide still in print, plus tens of thousands more that are no longer in print that detail every evidence that God exists, and not some generic God, but the God of the Bible. And these are written by experts (theologians), former Atheists, scientists, and philosophers. But please feel free to ignore it all in your blind faith Darwinism.

    "If there was evidence, you wouldn’t need faith; the evidence would speak for itself."

    Oh, you are absolutely right, and I have seen the evidence and made my conclusion. The God of the Bible is real, and I shall follow Him to the end of my days and even die for Him if need be.

    "The problem with these statements is that they are just plain false."

    And here you expose you complete ignorance. First, I am correct in my assertion as to the documentation regarding the existence of God, you simply dismiss it because it is written by people who believe in God. By that logic I can say that all evidence for evolution is false purely because it is being discovered and presented by Darwinists, as opposed to the quality of the evidence itself. As far as my assertion regarding the number of papers written about God proving His existence, I was pataking what you said about about evolution and simply replacing the word "evolution" with "God". The fact that you just said this logic is false proves that you are being illogical while invalidating your own arguments at the same time. It's fascinating how every time I do this, use your argument and replace the word "evoltuion" with "God" you immediate attack your own argument. It's also quite funny.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 10:15 AM  

  • Daniel: As your refusal to believe simply because you cannot test God empirically shows.

    It isn’t only that I cannot test the existence of God empirically that prevents me from believing in the supernatural. I don’t believe in the supernatural because there is no sound evidence at all to support such a belief. By ‘sound evidence’, I mean something more than anecdotes, testimonials, feelings and ancient myths. The evidence would have to be obtained using the scientific method.

    Daniel: I have seen the evidence and made my conclusion.

    The problem with this evidence you’ve seen is that it hasn’t been obtained using the scientific method. It is unreliable and probably just the result of feelings on your part.

    Daniel: First, I am correct in my assertion as to the documentation regarding the existence of God, you simply dismiss it because it is written by people who believe in God.

    Again, no, I don’t simply dismiss it because it is written by people who believe in God, though experience has shown that these people do delude themselves. I dismiss it because it hasn’t been obtained using the scientific method and so is unreliable.

    Daniel: It's fascinating how every time I do this, use your argument and replace the word "evoltuion" with "God" you immediate attack your own argument.

    I’m not attacking my argument because my argument relies on sound evidence whereas yours does not. Substituting ‘God’ for ‘evolution’ is not an equivalent argument. Evolution is supported by evidence obtained using the scientific method; the existence of God is most definitely not.

    By Anonymous cjb, at 3:27 PM  

  • CJB,

    "The evidence would have to be obtained using the scientific method."

    Very well, please use the scientific method to prove the existenmce of the following:

    1- Love.
    2- Hate.
    3- What you ate for breakfast on April 19th 2006.
    4- What you ate for dinner last night.
    5- That this world is actually real and not simply someone else's dream.
    6- That any choice that you make is made of your of your own free will.
    7- That any choice you make is completely beyond your control and yu are simply fated to make that choice.
    8- Any one of a myriad of intangibles that are known to be real though they cannot be measured by any instrument of science.

    Do this and I imagine you can use the same tools to prove God according to the scientific method. That is, unless you choose to say that all of these questions are unimportant because every one of them does not exist because you cannot test them empirically using the scientific method, in which case you are simply a nut-job and nothing you say will be taken seriously by me ever again.

    "The problem with this evidence you’ve seen is that it hasn’t been obtained using the scientific method."

    Just as soon as you use the scientific method to prove that you love or hate your mother I will consider this argument to be valid. If this is an impossible task then I suggest you use the scientific method to prove the exact moment you lost your virginity happened, and be aware that your own account and the account of the other person involved and any other eyewitnesses there may be do not count as evidence according to the scientific method. You must be able to replicate the circmstances under experimental conditions with a control group and actually measure the loss of virginity, preferably in the form a mathematical formula. Otherwise, any assertion that you are no longer is simply anecdotal evidence and is completely unreliable and shall be discounted as no evidence at all. After all, it's only right to say that if my own experience with God is unreliable simply because it cannot be tested empirically then any experience you communicate is to be put through the same rigors or it shall be called a fairy tale, lie, or delusion. Hopefully you are beginning to see how incredibly silly your demand that we put God in a test tube is. Regardles, I still encourage you to study any of the hundreds of thousands of of books and papers discussing the evidence for the existence of God with at least the same attention you would give to the writings of Sigmund Freud . . . which brings up another ting you may as well attempt to test empirically, and that is the existence of the human mind.

    Are you at all aware that your arguments regarding God have nothing to do with science? What you are doing is pointing out your personal philosophy, one that Hume called Empiricism. Empiricism states that anything that cannot be measured empirically does not exist. Using this logic Hume argued that there is no such thing as a country because we cannot test a national border, nor does patriotism exist because it cannot be sensed or tested by any means, same with emotions, 'home' in the sensse of belonging, ownership, and every other intangible in existence. The problem with modern empiricists is that they mix their empiricism with relativism and say that anything they wish to believe does not exist does not exist because it cannot be tested emprically, but they also do not question that which they want to believe exists, like love. Empiricism and relativism are diametrically opposed though, they cannoot work together, and using each one selectively causes endless contradiction with ones self. I await your responses to this to see if you are a true empiricsts, or a hyppocrital relativist who uses empiricism only when it can be used to justify his own personal beliefs.

    Furthermore, show me how the scientific method supports even one of the presumed transitional species since we cannot test whether said species was actually a precursor to anything.

    "Again, no, I don’t simply dismiss it because it is written by people who believe in God, though experience has shown that these people do delude themselves. I dismiss it because it hasn’t been obtained using the scientific method and so is unreliable."

    And again you expose flawed logic. by this statement one must conclude that every history ever recorded is a falshood because the data that is recorded was not obtained using the scientific method.

    "Evolution is supported by evidence obtained using the scientific method"

    How quaint. You actually believe that all of the assumptions regarding evolution that rely on fossils were obtained using the scientific method instead of theoretical deduction. You also believe that evey experiment that has shown contractictory evidence to eveolution is invalid despite living up to every aspect of the scientific method. You also believe that geologic evidence that shatters old assumptions about the primitive Earth is unreliable simply because the unfounded assumptions allow for the possibilty of evolution while the actual evidence does not. What backward logic! "Evolution MUST be true, so we must interperet all evidence in light of evolution being true. if the evidence is contrary to evolution then it is invalid because evolution is true." I have heard this statement in so many forms it amazes me that scientists, who are supposed to interperet thories in light of the evidence have chosen, in this one case, evolution. to interperet evidence in light of a theory. The reason, of course, is that to interperet evoltuon in light of th eevidence, as the scientific method demands, would dismember evolution and leave a gaping void inscientific knowledge that only God is left to fill. This is, of course, repugnant to most scientists.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 1:59 PM  

  • Daniel: Very well, please use the scientific method to prove the existenmce of the following:

    1- Love.
    2- Hate.
    3- What you ate for breakfast on April 19th 2006.
    4- What you ate for dinner last night.
    5- That this world is actually real and not simply someone else's dream.
    6- That any choice that you make is made of your of your own free will.
    7- That any choice you make is completely beyond your control and yu are simply fated to make that choice.
    8- Any one of a myriad of intangibles that are known to be real though they cannot be measured by any instrument of science.


    You see, Daniel; this is precisely your problem. You believe that God exists based upon nothing more than feelings and assumptions. I’ll answer your questions and perhaps then you will see why your beliefs are irrational.

    Love and hate are feelings or emotions. Of course these feelings exist in people’s minds, but they are not physical entities. Are you telling me that God is nothing more than a feeling people have? You know, I think you’re right; that is exactly what God is.

    What I ate for breakfast and dinner are events in the past; they are not physical entities. I could tell you what I ate, but should you simply take my anecdote on faith? Should you even assume that I ate breakfast or dinner? No, only a fool would make an assumption without any evidence and you can’t be sure that what I told you is what actually happened so why would you believe it?

    All the physical evidence we have around us suggests that the world is real. The evidence is consistent and there is no contradictory evidence. We have no evidence to suggest that the world is someone’s dream so we should tentatively assume that the world actually exists. Of course, you can leap to the assumption that the world is someone’s dream, but it would be irrational to do so because you have just as much evidence supporting that notion as you do for the existence of God.

    The choices I make are also events; they are not physical entities. You apparently believe that God is physical entity that can influence the natural world. If that is the case then there will be observations that can be made or experiments that can be conducted to test that hypothesis. But that isn’t the case, is it? God is not a physical entity that can influence the natural world. God is intangible. In other words, God is just a feeling you have.

    Daniel: Using this logic Hume argued that there is no such thing as a country because we cannot test a national border, nor does patriotism exist because it cannot be sensed or tested by any means, same with emotions, 'home' in the sensse of belonging, ownership, and every other intangible in existence.

    Of course all these things exist as feelings or notions in a person’s mind, but they are not physical entities. You go on and on about feelings and intangibles as though it is somehow relevant, but it isn’t unless you are arguing that God is nothing more than a feeling or intangible with no presence in or influence on the natural world. The people who have these feelings physically exist, but the feelings themselves have no physical presence. The feelings per se don’t affect the physical world; the people who have the feelings are the ones causing the effect. I’m willing to concede that God exists as a feeling in people’s minds—something they have deluded themselves into believing—but not as a physical entity that can influence the natural world because there is just no evidence to support this.

    By Anonymous cjb, at 6:03 PM  

  • CJB,

    "Love and hate are feelings or emotions. Of course these feelings exist in people’s minds, but they are not physical entities. Are you telling me that God is nothing more than a feeling people have? You know, I think you’re right; that is exactly what God is."

    How utterly hilarious. You state that love and hate exist, but you fail to provide any empirical evidence. Then you go on to make a ridiculous statement where you put your words in my mouth. I said no such thing and don't you go around lying by saying I did. Anyway, where is the evidence for love and hate? Do you have anything empirical to offer, or just snide comments?

    "What I ate for breakfast and dinner are events in the past; they are not physical entities."

    The food is a physical entity, as are you. As far as the event goes, there is more to this than science, I am touching on history.

    "All the physical evidence we have around us suggests that the world is real."

    Are you so sure about this? Philosphers have debated the question of reality itself for centuries simply because the question of reality is easy to confuse. As an entity in a dream wouldn't you believe that your own ethereal surroundings are real even if they were not? Would everything you can use to tst your surroundings fall under the same illusion as you, thereby nullifying any test you can conduct? The list goes on to fill books, and no humanlogic has been able to come up with a sufficiently conclusive answer as to whether this existence is even real. The beast anyone has com up with is "Cogito ergo sum", "I think, therefore I am". Of course, all this does is prove that your own consciousness exists, but only to you. It does not prove that all the world is more than a phigment of your imagination or a dream. If you had a solid background in logic and philosophy you would already know and understand this problem. However, I knew long ago that you did not by the arguments you have presented in this debate.

    "The choices I make are also events; they are not physical entities."

    Wrong! What you do based on the choice is an event, the choice itself is something entirely different. It has been defined by some as an entity that drives action. Therefore, choice tself should be a testable thing if it exists at all.

    "Of course all these things exist as feelings or notions in a person’s mind, but they are not physical entities."

    I see. So you are arguing that every country in the world is just a feeling rather than an actual entity with borders, laws, and citizens? No nation in the world actually exists? And waht of laws? can you touch them? se them in physical form? or are the just notions on a page that have no meaning in reality? You are failing to address the issues here man. You have avoiding answering every question and you have provided empirical evidence for mothing. You want to call God an emotion, but you have failed to provide empirical evidence that emotions exist. Am I to simply take it on faith that emotions are real? Com eon man! Quit wasting time and trying to dodge the questions.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 3:26 PM  

  • Daniel: You state that love and hate exist, but you fail to provide any empirical evidence. Then you go on to make a ridiculous statement where you put your words in my mouth. I said no such thing and don't you go around lying by saying I did. Anyway, where is the evidence for love and hate? Do you have anything empirical to offer, or just snide comments?

    I said they exist as feelings or emotions, not as physical entities. They are labels we give to emotional states. The evidence that people experience these states of mind is in their behaviour and their actions. The emotions have no physical presence per se and cannot affect the physical world by themselves. It is people who affect the world based on their emotional state. I asked you if you thought God was a feeling or emotion; I didn’t say you thought so. But from your hyperbolic response, I assume that you think God really has a physical presence in the natural world and can influence it as well. If this is the case, then there should be observations we can make and tests we can perform to verify its existence. If you don’t think God has a physical presence in and an influence on the natural world then that’s tantamount to saying that it doesn’t exist. So which is it? Do you think God has a physical presence or not?

    Daniel: Of course, all this does is prove that your own consciousness exists, but only to you. It does not prove that all the world is more than a phigment of your imagination or a dream.

    Well you can retreat into solipsism if you like, but this doesn’t help your case that God exists. If everything is an illusion then that includes God.

    Daniel: And waht of laws? can you touch them? se them in physical form? or are the just notions on a page that have no meaning in reality? You are failing to address the issues here man.

    Of course countries, borders and laws are just notions in people’s minds without a physical presence, but I didn’t say they have no meaning. Is there any test you can perform to distinguish between a French rock, tree or bird and a German rock, tree or bird? Do you think birds and other animals care what country they are in or understand borders? Do any animals obey human laws? All these things are just concepts humans have devised and only affect the way humans behave.

    I’m not the one failing to address the issue here. The issue is not whether there is sound evidence supporting the existence of feelings, emotions, laws or countries, but whether there is sound evidence supporting the existence of God. Whether emotions exist or not has no bearing on whether God exists or not (except inasmuch as I suspect that God is nothing more than a feeling). If you believe that God has a physical presence in the natural world and an influence on it then there should be sound evidence to back that belief, otherwise the belief is irrational.

    By Anonymous cjb, at 4:33 AM  

  • CJB,

    "I said they exist as feelings or emotions, not as physical entities."

    And where is the empirical evidence to back up your assertion? I want to see it. Prove to me that emotions exist.

    "Do you think God has a physical presence or not?"

    He has a spiritual presence, and can manfest Himself physiclly if He chooses to, like when Jesus walked the Earth.

    "Well you can retreat into solipsism if you like, but this doesn’t help your case that God exists."

    You are missing the point of this argument. The point is that the measure of the burden of proof to even prove to another that your own existence is real is so strict that it cannot be done. Naturally, there is a reasonable threshold that is crossed long before you reach this point, however, many supposedly reasonable people actually do go this far in determining their reality as if it were a subjective thing.

    "Is there any test you can perform to distinguish between a French rock, tree or bird and a German rock, tree or bird?"

    I can think of several that can be used to distinguish a French Human from any other nationality in the world. Genetic tests, language differences, accents when speaking the same language, cultural values, the list could go on. Since we can empirically test the differences between French Humans and other nationalities can we say that there is sufficient evidence to prove that nations are real? Beyond that, your answer here reveals just how far you have sunk into philosophical unreality. By calling a country nothing more than an idea and an emmotion, and combining that with some of your past statements you reveal your own detachment from the very real world in favor of a kind selective empiricism that defies logic. You said yourself that you can see the effect that wind has, and it is very easy to see the effect national borders have of culture, language, relationships, diplomacy, religion, and just about every aspect of life. To the scientific mind that might be considered overwhelming evidence in favor of the existence of nations as a real entity. To the philosophical empiricist this is all proof of nothing. So which are you? Scietific, or a philosophical empiricist? It is not possible to reconcile both desite their numeroous similaritie du to the major differences that create fundamental conflicts between the two.

    "I’m not the one failing to address the issue here. The issue is not whether there is sound evidence supporting the existence of feelings, emotions, laws or countries, but whether there is sound evidence supporting the existence of God."

    Wrong again. The issue is one of proof, and not just proof, bt sufficient empirical proof. I have brought out every oe of my examples and requested that you provide empirical evidence to support them knowing that you would not deny the existence of any one of them, and you have not, but also knowing thatyou would be unable to provide empirical evidence of the kind you demand for the existence of God to support the existence of these things. This was a bit of turnabout where you are expected to provide the evidence you demand for the existence of universally accepted realities. If you cannot provide this evidence I intend to deride you for your baseless faith in that which you cannot provide sufficient empirical evidence for. I will not even go so far as to call your faith an emotion because you have failed to provide any empirical evidence that emotions exist. I shall simply call it illogical, baseless, and completely ungrounded in science. Which leads me into the final point of this response, you keep saying you tink God is nothing more thnan an emotion, but for this to be true emotions must exist, and you have not provided any empirical evidence that emotions exist, until you can do this it is scientifically irresponsible to say that God exists as an emotion rather than a real being.

    And yes, I do believe that God is a very real being, not an emotional concoction brewed up in the deepest recesses of my psyche.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 8:03 AM  

  • Daniel: Prove to me that emotions exist.

    And yes, I do believe that God is a very real being, not an emotional concoction brewed up in the deepest recesses of my psyche.


    Have you ever experienced emotions? I’m guessing the answer is ‘yes’. Do the emotions themselves have a physical presence in the real world or can they influence the real world by themselves, without your action. The answer to both these questions is obviously ‘no’. So personal experience shows us that what we choose to call emotions exist in our minds, but they have no physical presence in the real world. In the same way, God exists in your mind, but it has no physical presence in the real world and cannot influence the real world. It is just a feeling you have. If you want to convince any rational person that God is a real being with a physical presence then you will need to provide sound evidence—evidence gathered using the scientific method—to support that assertion. To believe such a thing without sound evidence simply isn’t rational.

    The rest of your post is just variations on the theme except for this:

    Daniel: I can think of several that can be used to distinguish a French Human from any other nationality in the world. Genetic tests, language differences, accents when speaking the same language, cultural values, the list could go on.

    Show me a genetic trait that is unique to the French, Germans or any other nationality. Given that there are no genetic traits that are unique even to a race of people, I think it is ridiculous to assert that you could distinguish a person’s nationality genetically. What is this, Lamarckism?

    By Anonymous cjb, at 12:43 AM  

  • CJB,

    "Have you ever experienced emotions? I’m guessing the answer is ‘yes’."

    Of course I have, but that is just anecdotal evidence. It is not quantifiable proof that emotions are real. I want tangible, quantifiable, empirical evidence, not anecdotal evidence.

    "Given that there are no genetic traits that are unique even to a race of people, I think it is ridiculous to assert that you could distinguish a person’s nationality genetically."

    And here you deomnstrate your own scientific ignorance. Not only can we determine nationality through genetic testing, we can even determine what region of a country your ancestry comes from. Genetics is being used in this way on a daily basis. There is evn a cataloge of what geenetic traits are peculiar to specified regions. Think I'm lying? Ask the first geneticist you see, he will verify everything I have just said.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 10:16 PM  

  • Daniel: . It is not quantifiable proof that emotions are real. I want tangible, quantifiable, empirical evidence, not anecdotal evidence.

    There isn’t any, but that is exactly my point. How many times do I have to say this? Emotions are not real in the sense that they have a physical presence or can influence the natural world directly. They are all in your mind, just like God. There is no tangible, quantifiable, empirical evidence that God exists; there is only anecdotal evidence and a feeling you have.

    Daniel: Not only can we determine nationality through genetic testing, we can even determine what region of a country your ancestry comes from.

    I’m well aware that certain small, regional populations have unique genetic traits, but not everyone of the same nationality possesses those traits. However, this is beside the point. The point is that the concept of nationality is a label we give to people, not a physical entity.

    I repeat, if you want to convince any rational person that God is a real being with a physical presence then you will need to provide evidence gathered using the scientific method to support that assertion. To believe such a thing without sound evidence isn’t rational.

    By Anonymous cjb, at 1:00 AM  

  • CJB,

    "Emotions are not real in the sense that they have a physical presence or can influence the natural world directly."

    Is that so? And here I thought emotions were rewsponsible for most marriages in the modern world, many murders, volumes of spokenand written words, and innumerable other manifestations that affect the physical world. You cannot empricallly test love, but you can see it in action in the way lovers behave towards each other. You can see love in the man who gives up his own life for a friend. You cannot see lust, but you can you can see the sex it induces. You cannot see hate, but you can see the violence, even murders it causes. These are very real physical manifestations in the real world of something that cannot itself be measured or tested in any empirical sense. In the same way, you cannot measure or test God in any effective way, but it is easy to look at the world, look at nature, look at events, and see the very real effect God has on everything. This whole time you have never once denied that emotions exists, yu just kept trying to say that they do exist but cnnot be empiricallly tested. Your argument for emotions is the same as most people's arguments for God. However, Since you are looking for something more quantifiable than a philosophical discussion regarding whether your argument against God is simply goofy because you accept emotions, which you canot prove, and then want to call God an emotion, which you also canot prove since you cannot prove emotions, at least, not according to the same scientific rigors you want to put God through. In reality, any idiot can see emotions at work everywhere and it would take the most brilliant of morons, or the most moronic of geniuses to deny their existence. I say the same exactthing about God. But, you want something more quantifiable. Therefore I shall search through he work of other, smarter men tahn me and present the evidence they look to in the physical world and see God. This will take awhile, so be patient. This series took months of intensive study even after a lifetime of education in evolution.

    "I’m well aware that certain small, regional populations have unique genetic traits, but not everyone of the same nationality possesses those traits. However, this is beside the point."

    No, it is not beside the point at all. You issued a challenge to tangible evidence about nationalities, and I gave it to you. Not only are national borders defined by geography, but by breeding as well. And don;t get me started on how easy it is to tell a rock from one country apart from a rock from another country. Geological testing is quite capable of pinpointing not only the country, but the exact quary or rock formation the rock came from. Liek I have been driving at, empiricism is a silly philosophy when taken in it's pure form.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 1:30 PM  

  • atheist need to read C.S. Lewis's "Mere Christianity". C.S. Lewis was an atheist and converted to Christianity. In the book, he explains his conversion and he explains why (without a shadow of a doubt) he feels Christianity is correct.

    Science cannot prove anything without doing the math. And according to C.S. Lewish, the math just doesn't add up for evolution.

    By Anonymous Jeff Bolin, at 11:29 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home


 
Listed on BlogShares