Civil and engaging debate on Christianity and religious issues

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next

Reply to topic
Don McIntosh
First Post
PostPosted: Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:52 pm  Why Evolutionary Theory Is Fundamentally Flawed Reply with quote

The explanatory logic of evolution, at least as it's commonly stated, fails because it assumes (wrongly) that what is true of the parts of a complex system may be validly inferred to hold for the whole as well. Thus my argument:

1. Evolution posits that the function of any complex biological system can be adequately explained as the accumulation of countless minor functional adaptations of its individual components.
2. To say that a characteristic of the whole system can be adequately explained in terms of a characteristic of its individual components is to say that a whole is equal to the sum of its parts.
3. To say that a whole is equal to the sum of its parts is to commit the fallacy of composition.
4. Evolution is a fallacy.

Note that I am not suggesting that all inferences from parts to whole fail to hold, but that the line of reasoning is fallacious on its face because in fact many such inferences do fail to hold. Given that specifiably complex biological systems are structurally heterogenous, there is no prima facie reason to think that what is true of the parts will be true of the whole. Evolution theorists therefore bear the burden of proof, namely, to explain why anyone should expect such an inference to hold in the case of specifiably complex systems.

Read the entire paper here:
https://www.academia.edu/38735629/Black_Box_Logic_Why_Evolutionary_Theory_Is_Fun...

Questions for debate: Is evolutionary theory a fallacy? If so, does that make it false?
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 61: Tue May 07, 2019 5:42 pm
Reply
Re: Why Evolutionary Theory Is Fundamentally Flawed

Like this post
Divine Insight wrote:

Don McIntosh wrote:

Questions for debate: Is evolutionary theory a fallacy?


No it's not. In fact, evolution theory (which is just an explanation of how evolution has occurred), is backed up by overwhelming physical evidence that cannot be denied, and hasn't been credibly denied by proponents of "Intelligent Design Speculation"


Saying so doesn't make it true. It seems to me that the Darwinianian take on speciation (or the origin of species by so-called natural selection) is a good example of a failed theory, kept alive as a prop for the pseudo-religion of empiricism and reductionist materialism that infects university science departments.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 62: Wed May 08, 2019 7:33 am
Reply
Re: Why Evolutionary Theory Is Fundamentally Flawed

Like this post
[Replying to DrNoGods]

Quote:
I think it is safe to say that the people and/or organizations who prepared the information in the links I sent, and the references in those links, know far more about whale evolution than you or I do. The current best explanation is that whales evolved from a land animal, as described in those links and many others like them. Do you have any legitimate science references that show otherwise, or can you only regurgitate what you read on creationist's (ie. nonscience) websites?


Maybe. But not these people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0csd3M4bc0Q

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 63: Wed May 08, 2019 8:56 am
Reply

Like this post (1): John Human
DrNoGods wrote:
Read Dawkin's "The Ancestor's Tale", then follow an example there forward rather than backwards as he did. You will see that the various complex organs working in tandem started as far simpler versions of themselves and over time developed into the mix of common organs that all tetrapods (for example) have today. This group of animals all have the same basic set of body parts (brain, heart, eyes, skeleton, nerve and blood systems, etc.). They are arranged very differently to create the various modern animals, but the fact that these core organs and systems are present across a large chunk of the animal kingdom is just further support for ToE.


That evolution happens is obvious and that there are simpler antecedents for these body parts is not a problem either. But these antecedents evolve together. They each evolve hand-in-glove with all the others and the organism evolves as a whole. This is the problem I have with this random idea. The chances that one body part would evolve by random changes (mutations) is unlikely. The chances that each body part would evolve in concert with all the others to make a highly functioning whole is asking too much suspension of disbelief.

It has been only 550 million years since the Cambrian Explosion and most modern, complex life, dates back to that time. If we say that average generation is 10 years that means we only have 55 million generations for the evolution of all modern life. That's only a hill o'beans compared to the complexity we are talking about.

Let me quote again the last part of what you have said:

Quote:
but the fact that these core organs and systems are present across a large chunk of the animal kingdom is just further support for ToE.


I think you need to be careful about what is being supported. It is, no doubt, support for evolution per se. But ToE is not evolution, it is a theory about evolution. And to see what is being supported it is necessary to break down the theory into its constituent parts. It has three main parts:

1. Evolution of species
2. Random Mutations
3. Natural Selection

So what is being supported by the evidence you cite? Only 1. above, is being supported.
This is an important point because it is necessary to see what evidence supports what.

For example evidence for Natural Selection does not support 2. Why? Because natural selection would obtain ragardless of whether the changes are random or intelligently moderated (or even caused by the pink faerie). I don't think it is safe to simply say 'The evidence supports the theory' and then assume the theory in its totality is correct. One must always understand what part of the theory the evidence supports.

In short, evidence for evolution is not necessarily evidence for the (whole) theory of evolution.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 64: Wed May 08, 2019 10:09 am
Reply
Re: Why Evolutionary Theory Is Fundamentally Flawed

Like this post
[Replying to post 35 by DrNoGods]

Quote:
Meaningless circular argument. There is no evidence that Jesus rose from the dead, which kills your entire argument.


So is the resurrection a historical fact?

The following is evidence from scholars that study the historicity of the Bible. And all critical scholars except 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 as historical fact. Because of how close this creed can be dated to the actual resurrection.

1. This was written by Paul a person that all critical scholars recognized as a converted persecutor of Christians.

2. All critical scholars recognize that 1 Corinthians was written around the year AD 55. Which makes this one of the earliest NT books.

3. In this creed Paul uses the words delivered and received these are technical words for the passing on tradition. Paul received this tradition and is just passing it on.

Fuller, Resurrection Narratives pg. 10
Wilckens, Resurrection pg. 2
Bultmann Theology vol. 1 pg. 293
Dodd, Apostolic Preaching pp 13-14

We will stop there. There are more points that prove that this is an oral tradition that Paul passed down. In which I can mention later if I need to.

How early is this Creed?

Numerous Critical scholars date this creed at 3 to 8 years after the resurrection.
Hans grass, Leonard Goppelt,Thomas Sheehan.

How would Paul have received this creed?
From Peter when Paul met with him and the other apostles in Jerusalem. Which would date Pauls reception of the creed to five to seven years after the resurrection.

The creed is actually earlier than this. Since the tradition would actually have been formulated before Paul first heard it, the creed itself you have to be even earlier.

The independent beliefs themselves, which later composed the formalized the creed, would would then date the creed back to the actual historical event. Which is unprecedented in antiquity.

This means there is no way for this to be a myth because of how close it is the actual event, because people would have known if this event was true or false. An of the 500 witnesses could have falsified this creed.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 65: Sun May 12, 2019 1:43 pm
Reply
Re: Why Evolutionary Theory Is Fundamentally Flawed

Like this post
DrNoGods wrote:


Yes ... I believe that is how it happened. We don't yet know the detailed mechanism for how this happened, but whatever the mechanism it is a more rational idea than that some god which has never been seen, heard, or demonstrated to exist in any form, at any time in history, simply created life by magic.


Sure, anything but the "G" word. Gotcha.

DrNoGods wrote:

Because abiogenesis, panspermia, or other hypotheses for the origin of life are completely separate subjects from ToE. ToE only describes how life diversified once it did exist, but makes no statements on HOW life came to exist.


You are generalizing, while I am speaking specifics. I am speaking about your view; NATURALISM (No gods).

If God doesn't exist, and abiogenesis is naturally impossible; then how can evolution be true?

DrNoGods wrote:

It could be a god creation event, and ToE is fine with that.


Christianity is fine with that, too.

DrNoGods wrote:


Obviously life did have to come about by some means for evolution to then have material to work with, but the mechanism for origin of life has nothing to do with ToE, by definition. You can't tie them together arbitrarily because it may help an argument that ToE is invalid because it doesn't explain the origin of life on Earth.


Again, your name is DrNoGods, and if your sentiments about God is correct, then abiogenesis would absolutely, positively have to be true..correct?

But, it could be false; and if it could be false, well...no naturalism.

DrNoGods wrote:

Agreed. Life has to exist before evolution can work. Evolution just says nothing about HOW life came to exist.


I am not implying that evolution "says something about how life came to exist". I am saying; evolution (on naturalism) is dependent upon an unproven theory that life originated from nonliving material.

If you don't believe in God, then abiogenesis must be true...but abiogenesis could be false, therefore, evolution (without God) must also be false.

DrNoGods wrote:

But just because we don't yet know the detailed mechanism for how life first came into existence on this planet doesn't mean that a god did it.


It doesn't mean that a "god" didn't do it, either. At that point, you just simply have to withhold judgement, thus taking a more "agnostic" approach.

Be humble, be agnostic.

Instead of being humble, you want to take a more hardcore atheistic approach, by saying there is no gods (thus, your name).

Well, when you do that, there are certain implications that comes with it...implications that you can either live by, or die by.

DrNoGods wrote:

That isn't the default alternative. To use your same argument, you have to prove that a creating god exists in the first place before you can claim it created life (or anything else).


Too easy. Theists have been arguing and/or providing proof for the existence of God for centuries. It ain't nothing new.

DrNoGods wrote:

Prior to the development of modern science ... anything that wasn't understood was attributed to the actions of a deity (earthquakes, famine, etc.). It made sense 2000 years ago. It doesn't make sense now. "God did it" is not the default answer if science doesn't yet know.


Genetic fallacy. By the same token, "nature did it" is also not the default answer just because you have beef with "God did it".

DrNoGods wrote:

Nope. Another attempt to try and tie evolution to the mechanism for how life arose. They are absolutely independent.


Without God, abiogenesis must be true. It doesn't get more "dependent" than that.

DrNoGods wrote:

You can have a theory for how life evolved (and we do ... ToE) completely independent of the mechanism for how life arose in the first place. If I give you a creating god to start things off, ToE doesn't change.


Yeah, the ToE doesn't change a thing if a creating god started things off...but it sure as heck would be a defeater of atheism/naturalism (your position), wouldn't it?

DrNoGods wrote:

If it is a panspermia event, ToE doesn't change.


Panspermia is still a concept involving natural law. There are only two options for the origins of life; natural, supernatural.

If there is a third option, I haven't heard of it yet.

DrNoGods wrote:

But you seem to accept ToE to a point ... "microevolution"


Of course. I accept science. I accept things that can be observed, experimented on, and is predictable; and all three are checked off as it pertains to the concept of microevolution.

DrNoGods wrote:

... you just don't want to accept the next step that many microevolution events can lead to a "macroevolution" event.


Bingo, amigo!!

DrNoGods wrote:

And that transition requires no explanation for HOW life arose in the first place.


If God doesn't exist, and abiogenesis is false; then you REALLY have some explaining to do.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 66: Sun May 12, 2019 2:21 pm
Reply
Re: Why Evolutionary Theory Is Fundamentally Flawed

Like this post (1): Bust Nak
[Replying to post 65 by For_The_Kingdom]

Quote:
I am saying; evolution (on naturalism) is dependent upon an unproven theory that life originated from nonliving material.


But that isn't correct. Evolution (on naturalism) is not dependent on the exact mechanism for how life appeared in the first place. It doesn't matter whether it arose from a creation event by a god, or from nonliving material, etc. It only depends on it happening by some mechanism, independent of what that mechanism is. That is my point.

Quote:
It doesn't mean that a "god" didn't do it, either. At that point, you just simply have to withhold judgement, thus taking a more "agnostic" approach.


Right, so both god did it, and god didn't do it, are on the table, meaning that a panspermia or abiogenesis event are also on the table.

Quote:
Instead of being humble, you want to take a more hardcore atheistic approach, by saying there is no gods (thus, your name).


Actually, my girlfriend came up with that name as the James Bond flick Dr. No was on the tube when I signed up for this website, and since I am an atheist she thought that would be an appropriate name. It occupied about 10 seconds of effort. But atheism is a lack of belief in gods ... it does claim that they absolutely do not exist. Big difference. If some god came down from the clouds and turned this glass of orange juice I have in front of me into a good Chardonnay, I'd believe in that god as I would have seen it, or direct evidence of it. But so far none of the thousands of god concepts humans have came up with can satisfy those basic requirements.

Quote:
Without God, abiogenesis must be true. It doesn't get more "dependent" than that.


I believe some sort of abiogenesis or panspermia event is true, and we just haven't found the mechanism yet (using the humble, agnostic approach that leaves this on the table).

Quote:
Yeah, the ToE doesn't change a thing if a creating god started things off...but it sure as heck would be a defeater of atheism/naturalism (your position), wouldn't it?


Well, it would certainly defeat the atheism part. But so far there is no evidence that any creating god(s) exist.

Quote:
If God doesn't exist, and abiogenesis is false; then you REALLY have some explaining to do.


And if god doesn't exist, and abiogenesis is true (being humble and agnostic again), then we have the answer. Science says to keep looking for the mechanism for nonliving molecules organizing in such a way as to create the simplest, single-celled organism meeting the requirements for life. Religion says to forget that ... just pin it on some unseen god being that has yet to reveal itself in any way and be satisfied with that explanation. One has some hope of being demonstrated, the other does not if past history is any guide.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 67: Sun May 12, 2019 6:33 pm
Reply
Re: Why Evolutionary Theory Is Fundamentally Flawed

Like this post
[Replying to post 66 by DrNoGods]

Quote:
... it does claim that they absolutely do not exist.


Correction: That should have said "it does NOT claim that they absolutely do not exist." Caught the error too late to edit the original post.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 68: Mon May 13, 2019 10:54 am
Reply
"failed-theory Darwinians"

Like this post (1): Don McIntosh
DrNoGods wrote:

[snip] the whale comment is just wrong. All the evidence points to them evolving from land animals.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-did-whales-evolve-73276956/

http://www.eartharchives.org/articles/the-evolution-of-whales/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans
(and references at the bottom)



I think the available evidence (as summarized in the above links) strongly supports the supposition that whales evolved from land mammals. However, the available evidence presents no support for the "failed-theory Darwinian" supposition that whales evolved in a process of speciation events (the emergence of new species who couldn't mate and produce fertile offspring with members of the parent species) that came about by means of so-called "natural selection" (with or without genetic mutation as a boosting factor).


Of particular note is the penultimate paragraph in the third of the four links that Dr. NoGods provided:

Quote:
It is mind-boggling to think that all the different organs – limbs, ears, nose – had to change all at the same time, and one wonders how the genome changes needed to enable the morphological changes accumulated.
http://www.eartharchives.org/articles/the-evolution-of-whales/


Yes it is mind-boggling -- all these different parts of the emerging species "had to change all at the same time" -- almost as if *gasp* there was an intelligent designer of some sort in the room. (And please, I'm not lining up with the "God did it" camp.)

It is just as mind-boggling (from the point of view of "failed-theory Darwinians") as the locking knee joint in humans, the various parts of which must all work in coordination to have any reason for being. There is no such thing as a "transitional form" with a half-developed locking knee joint.

Likewise is the well-known necessity, for the maintenance of a stable population of humans, of genetic diversity. If somehow there was a magical moment where Nature selected the locking knee joint and the slow-forming cranium and the expanded frontal lobe of the brain all at the same time, and likewise magically selected a matched breeding pair with the identical set of magical mutations enabling the "Adam and Eve" of the newly-evolved species to breed, the necessity of children and grandchildren to inbreed would quickly extinguish the nascent species. The appearance of modern humans pre-supposes a stable gene pool at the very beginning, precluding a "failed-theory Darwinian" explanation for the origin of homo sapiens.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 69: Tue May 14, 2019 3:53 am
Reply
Re: "failed-theory Darwinians"

Like this post
John Human wrote:


Yes it is mind-boggling -- all these different parts of the emerging species "had to change all at the same time" -- almost as if *gasp* there was an intelligent designer of some sort in the room. (And please, I'm not lining up with the "God did it" camp.)


Yes, the dice seem to be loaded in favour of intelligence. It is hard to see how all these mutations could synchronise with each other if they are randomly determined.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 70: Wed May 15, 2019 3:51 am
Reply
Re: "failed-theory Darwinians"

Like this post
John Human wrote:

I think the available evidence (as summarized in the above links) strongly supports the supposition that whales evolved from land mammals...

... Yes it is mind-boggling -- all these different parts of the emerging species "had to change all at the same time" -- almost as if *gasp* there was an intelligent designer of some sort in the room.

These two statements don't seem to gel together, if you accept whales evolved from land mammals, why would you feel the need to insert an intelligent designer? Lots of things changes all together, therefore design? The whole point of evolution is that no design is needed.

mgb wrote:

Yes, the dice seem to be loaded in favour of intelligence. It is hard to see how all these mutations could synchronise with each other if they are randomly determined.

That's where evolution shines as an explanation, it tells us why these mutations don't need to synchronise with each other and still get the result we got.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Display posts from previous:   

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next

Jump to:  
Facebook
Tweet

 




On The Web | Ecodia | Hymn Lyrics Apps
Facebook | Twitter

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.   Produced by Ecodia.

Igloo   |  Lo-Fi Version