5 ms·

Save for all that fossil evidence, genetic evidence, corroborating evidence in short-lived creatures. Yet again, what you're saying here is "Trust me that I pu

by kirse 18y ago

Save for all that fossil evidence, genetic evidence, corroborating evidence in short-lived creatures. Yet again, what you're saying here is "Trust me that I put all the independent pieces together properly and that's what is shown on the box." All "scientific fact" is the creation of man. There is nothing privledged about our physical models. Indeed, it's certain that our current models of electricity, gravity, and nutrition are incomplete and probably deeply flawed models. Of course it is! Except when we observe physical processes, we're not starting with the question "Does this even exist?" but "Ok, we KNOW this exists, but how does this work?". The difference between the two is very distinct, and both are subject to man's interpretation. Read this carefully: ---- Physics takes existing observable processes and deconstructs them so we can understand them better. Macro-Evolution is the attempt to take processes and make them add up (or construct) into a larger process that we don't even know exists - you would agree that we've never observed Macro-Evolution since there's not enough time. To further my physics example, they just spent several billion on the Large Hadron Collider in an attempt to further deconstruct the nature of our world (notably, finding a Higgs boson). ----.

KirinDave 18y ago
Yet again, what you're saying here is "Trust me that I put all the independent pieces together properly and that's what is shown on the box." "Like all of the rest of science, where this process is good enough!" Why isn't it good enough here? Of course it is! Except when we observe physical processes, we're not starting with the question "Does this even exist?" but "Ok, we KNOW this exists, but how the heck does this work?". The difference between the two is very distinct. There is no difference between observations of these kinds. Our senses are so incredibly flawed and unreliable, as are our minds, that there is basically no difference when it comes to science. The attempt to prove Macro-Evolution is the attempt to prove that it even exists (or Does man's linkage of these independent processes indeed = MacroEvolution?). It's funny that you say this. 8-10 years ago, the micro-vs-macro-evolution argument was called "irreducible complexity", and the scale was much smaller than what you're holding to now. "How could complex things like flagellum" evolve? Well science has gone and shown that not only is it possible, it's not hard at all. So, your camp was forced to _move the goalposts_ and say, "Well that level of complexity is okay, but now this level of complexity up here is totally unproven!" And when we show you macro-evolution you'll just move the goalposts again. Because it keeps happening over and over. When we attempt to understand physics and other inherent universal processes, we already know they exist... Except that even a casual understanding of science in history would tell you this statement is grossly false. Heliocentricity comes to mind. And while we're busy debating all this proof and you're picking tiny holes in a remarkably well-researched theory that has risen to prominence as the "unifying theory of biology", where does ID start offering complex studies? Your life-origin of choice has basically nothing behind it save, "My bible tells me so, it's certainly possible, and I don't really believe your evidence to the contrary." You cannot base a theory on negative statements and the Bible. Your position is intellectually bankrupt, your arguments presented thus far are literally over 5 years old and well-debunked, the scientific community rejects your hypothesis, and your pathological avoidance of the fundamental inconsistencies you're proposing in being an anti-evolutionist are plain as day to anyone without a religious axe to grind.
- kirse 18y ago
  We're really getting nowhere, but I'm curious to know one last thing. Since you seem to be speaking as an ambassador for the scientific community, which one of these processes would have a more solid foundation in fact and truth? 1. An empirically observable process that, by its very nature, is known to exist. 2. An unobservable process, where the very condition of existence is unknown. There's a huge difference in the science of deconstructing what is known to exist (the empirical) versus trying to construct the unknown. One is based in solid fact and the extremely powerful truth of existence, the other is just a pitiful shot in the dark and based on faith that (1) man has the intelligence and capability to put things together properly (2) it even exists.
  - KirinDave 18y ago
    We're really getting nowhere.. You're right.
    - kirse 18y ago
      Are you not going to answer my question then? Or do you genuinely not know the answer? Your position is intellectually bankrupt, your arguments presented thus far are literally over 5 years old and well-debunked, the scientific community rejects your hypothesis, and your pathological avoidance of the fundamental inconsistencies you're proposing in being an anti-evolutionist are plain as day to anyone without a religious axe to grind. If you're going to be summarily and swiftly dismissive under the premises that I'm just another "anti-evolutionist" religious type, then proceed to insult me and try to question the validity of my argument by saying I'm someone with an "axe to grind", then you will at least acknowledge that the very science we are debating certainly deserves its massive dose of skepticism from even science itself, not just religious individuals.
      - logjam 18y ago
        I dismiss your "arguments" even more swiftly (you're not making any, you are merely making tired, unsupported assertions). The answers to your "questions" can all be found here, which 30 seconds of googling would have found for you: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ You're welcome.

by kirse 18y ago

KirinDave 18y ago

Yet again, what you're saying here is "Trust me that I put all the independent pieces together properly and that's what is shown on the box." "Like all of the rest of science, where this process is good enough!" Why isn't it good enough here? Of course it is! Except when we observe physical processes, we're not starting with the question "Does this even exist?" but "Ok, we KNOW this exists, but how the heck does this work?". The difference between the two is very distinct. There is no difference between observations of these kinds. Our senses are so incredibly flawed and unreliable, as are our minds, that there is basically no difference when it comes to science. The attempt to prove Macro-Evolution is the attempt to prove that it even exists (or Does man's linkage of these independent processes indeed = MacroEvolution?). It's funny that you say this. 8-10 years ago, the micro-vs-macro-evolution argument was called "irreducible complexity", and the scale was much smaller than what you're holding to now. "How could complex things like flagellum" evolve? Well science has gone and shown that not only is it possible, it's not hard at all. So, your camp was forced to _move the goalposts_ and say, "Well that level of complexity is okay, but now this level of complexity up here is totally unproven!" And when we show you macro-evolution you'll just move the goalposts again. Because it keeps happening over and over. When we attempt to understand physics and other inherent universal processes, we already know they exist... Except that even a casual understanding of science in history would tell you this statement is grossly false. Heliocentricity comes to mind. And while we're busy debating all this proof and you're picking tiny holes in a remarkably well-researched theory that has risen to prominence as the "unifying theory of biology", where does ID start offering complex studies? Your life-origin of choice has basically nothing behind it save, "My bible tells me so, it's certainly possible, and I don't really believe your evidence to the contrary." You cannot base a theory on negative statements and the Bible. Your position is intellectually bankrupt, your arguments presented thus far are literally over 5 years old and well-debunked, the scientific community rejects your hypothesis, and your pathological avoidance of the fundamental inconsistencies you're proposing in being an anti-evolutionist are plain as day to anyone without a religious axe to grind.

kirse 18y ago
We're really getting nowhere, but I'm curious to know one last thing. Since you seem to be speaking as an ambassador for the scientific community, which one of these processes would have a more solid foundation in fact and truth? 1. An empirically observable process that, by its very nature, is known to exist. 2. An unobservable process, where the very condition of existence is unknown. There's a huge difference in the science of deconstructing what is known to exist (the empirical) versus trying to construct the unknown. One is based in solid fact and the extremely powerful truth of existence, the other is just a pitiful shot in the dark and based on faith that (1) man has the intelligence and capability to put things together properly (2) it even exists.
- KirinDave 18y ago
  We're really getting nowhere.. You're right.
  - kirse 18y ago
    Are you not going to answer my question then? Or do you genuinely not know the answer? Your position is intellectually bankrupt, your arguments presented thus far are literally over 5 years old and well-debunked, the scientific community rejects your hypothesis, and your pathological avoidance of the fundamental inconsistencies you're proposing in being an anti-evolutionist are plain as day to anyone without a religious axe to grind. If you're going to be summarily and swiftly dismissive under the premises that I'm just another "anti-evolutionist" religious type, then proceed to insult me and try to question the validity of my argument by saying I'm someone with an "axe to grind", then you will at least acknowledge that the very science we are debating certainly deserves its massive dose of skepticism from even science itself, not just religious individuals.
    - logjam 18y ago
      I dismiss your "arguments" even more swiftly (you're not making any, you are merely making tired, unsupported assertions). The answers to your "questions" can all be found here, which 30 seconds of googling would have found for you: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ You're welcome.