Rational Creationism
- Thread starter synthesizer-patel
- Start date
yes, but I am still waiting to find out how it doesn't require abiogenesis as a major player
yes
but the difference is that one is empirical and the other isn't
its certainly part of the discussion if it involves the validity of empiricism
as you are well aware, it is the wider application of macro evolution I am referring to.
on the contrary, its common for people to use the term macroevolution in the sense of its lower rung (species to species) as a means for bluffing over that it has greater implications on the level of genus.
You are doing right now ...
It boils down to the credibility of empiricism.
If you want to rest your case on empirical methodology you are obliged to run with it, and not fill in the gaps with extrapolation, etc
as indicated by Newton, there is the knowledge that empowers one's act of seeing.
If all claims of knowledge were reduced to the senses and instrumentation, there would be no need for people to go to university.
sure
once you know how to do it ...
There's no consensus that if you place water in a pot on a suitably sized fire it will boil (at around 100 degrees)?
Is there another school of thought that contests this?
Your question was "What empirical disciplines have contained and removed all shadows of doubt within the physical and biological environment?"
I answered it
If no-one has explained before - the theory of evolution is an explanatory framework that enables us to interpret the evidence of life arising from life.
The word empirical denotes information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment.
Thereofore consolidated microevolution is empirical
It's not a bluff - it fits precisely with the definition of the word - this is why I had to point it out to you - to suggest otherwise is to use a plastic definition of the word - changing it when evidence dissappoints you by being there.
Furthermore to suggest that macroevolution can only cause changes at the level of genera makes no logical sense - why would it stop? why suggest it would or does when empirical evidence shows that it doesn't.
Your free to have your own shifting (shifty?) changeable definition of the word or opinion on what it is and what it means if you like - but you aren't entitled to your own special facts - your view is not factual.
covered
More important to knowledge is technique - university teaches technique above knowledge
Sorry you were confusing me - I thought you were implyimng that consensus was arrived at arbitrarily rather than through hard empirical evidence
“
The evidence that A1 x time = A2 is remarkably distinct from the claim A1 x time = B1
second point - why is it logical to continue it? For instance if you (empirically) determine that 3 men can dig a metre cubed hole in 100 minutes, is it logical that 300 men can dig a metre cubed hole in 1 minute?
IOW is it logical to extrapolate a finding to an unsubstantiated claim?
Or to get more specific, is it logical to call upon arithmetic to solve what is a biological issue?
macroevolution is a term to explain the shift of one species (say an acquatic) to not only an entirely different species but a different genus ( say a land dweller)
T/F?
they teach technique as a subdivision of knowledge
usually it comes after theory and before conclusion/reflection
evolution theory is jam packed with shadows of doubt within the perimeter of uncertain boundaries ..... abiogenesis as a cause for it one clear example ... the ongoing research in the field of evolution in general is an even clearer one
not when it is extrapolated to the greater claims of macro-evolution however.
The evidence that A1 x time = A2 is remarkably distinct from the claim A1 x time = B1
first point - is that movement into a different genus is not the only sense of macroevolution
second point - why is it logical to continue it? For instance if you (empirically) determine that 3 men can dig a metre cubed hole in 100 minutes, is it logical that 300 men can dig a metre cubed hole in 1 minute?
IOW is it logical to extrapolate a finding to an unsubstantiated claim?
Or to get more specific, is it logical to call upon arithmetic to solve what is a biological issue?
macroevolution is a term to explain the shift of one species (say an acquatic) to not only an entirely different species but a different genus ( say a land dweller)
T/F?
only inasmuch as 3 men digging a meter cubed hole is covered ....
correction
they teach technique as a subdivision of knowledge
usually it comes after theory and before conclusion/reflection
if it is arbitrary there is no scope for consensus
the theory has certain areas that may be uncertain - such a swhat were the physical and biological conditions that led to the evolution of a particular species for example - but the theory itself is beyond doubt.
yes it is because we have evidence - the presaence of evidence means it is empircal - end of story
Bad example - is it not logical to assume that if I continue to modify a piece of machinery with new parts I will end up with a machine that not only has completely different functions but looks completely different as well.
fortunately it is not unsubstantiated - nor is it substantiated purely by mathematics
Yes - but it doesn't ONLY mean that -if you want a one word definition it would be "speciation"
That said in terms of fossil evidence for evolution we are disctinctly lacking in evidence for small scale microevolution - it exhibits itself mainly as large scale transitions between classes orders and families - so reptiles evolving into birds - fish evolving into reptiles etc - you know - exactly what you would want if you wanted solid empirical evidence of the kind of macroevolution that a creationist would demand.
There are of course a few exceptions of this - the fossil record of the evolutionary lineage of H. sapiens does record many very small scale changes over a relatively short period.
exactly that's why it relies upon empiricism
“
“
For instance it wouldn't be logical that you can make a nuclear war head by adding spare parts from a rat trap onto a cheese grater .... it doesn't matter how many rat traps you have.
hence "nature" becomes a term of vagueness
“
evidence of speciation does not equal evidence (of the wider claims) of macroevolution
assuming that one can go on adding parts in a way that isn't subject to any limit, yes.
For instance it wouldn't be logical that you can make a nuclear war head by adding spare parts from a rat trap onto a cheese grater .... it doesn't matter how many rat traps you have.
the fact is this - there is evidence of speciation - or milky sapped plants giving rise to other milky sapped plants - anything else is extrapolation and speculation
perhaps if you are only interested in discussing issues of species (a1 x time = a2) as opposed to genus (a1 x time = b1)
Reading the date of a fossil may be empirical ... shifting out to the significance becomes more an issue of extrapolation. You just have to examine the history of claims made in the name of the fossil record to see the shifting consensus (and there are many contributing issues to this ... the most obvious one being that if you base a body of evidence the size of a pool table as sufficient to determine the state of affairs of the earth's population millions of years ago you are inviting a large margin of error ...)
big difference between determining change from the fossil record and determining change in the standard empirical fashion
how much of the history of the boiling point of water has been as turbulent in comparison to, say, the fossil record?
and evidence that 3 men can dig a cubed meter hole in 100 minutes is evidence of what you can expect 300 men to accomplish?
or exactly like expecting 300 men to dig a cubed metre hole in 1 minute
No that's not what I said - direct evidence of evolution across higher taxonomical levels is direct evidence of evolution across higher taxonomical levels
no because its a bad analogy
did you mean to say a body of evidence so large that it would fill severall pool halls emptied of pool tables?
I guess complex issues surround when you extrapolate that to even higher taxonomical levels for which there is no evidence
extrapolation does have a nasty element to it, doesn't it?
several pool halls?
millions of years ago?
of a particular species (or even genus)?
You're not extrapolating again, are you?
There is no evidence of any sort of such happening.
The abundant direct evidence for consolidated microevolution across higher taxonomical levels requires no extrapolation - that's why it's called direct evidence
then why talk of aquatics transforming into land dwellers?
Or in short, why is it valid to invite an arithmetic solution to a biological problem?
How is that empirical?
I'm not talking about mathmatical solutions - only hard physical evidence - have been all along - dunno why you get your little head so confused
the only hard physical evidence is from spindly milky sapped plants giving rise to other spindly milky sapped plants.
Saying that the milky sapped plant is the precursor to an african violet or eucalyptus is something else .... (aka - extrapolation ... unless you can evidence c1 x time = c2, c2x time =c3, c3 x time =d1, etc)
Seriously, I don't know why you are confused about it ....
Last edited:
Where? What? By who?
When ADM designs a modified soybean it is obvious who did it and what they did.
You seem to want to claim designs but you have nothing to show and no designer to step forward.
practically anywhere
practically anything
so unless you see the man who designed the Lamborghini, it remains a product of random forces?
ironic how a little bit of background knowledge on the design brief is so enlightening, eh? (at the very least, if you were an illiterate farmer in India, it wouldn't quite be so obvious)
step forward?
Like an international soy bean R&D manager in the agricultural industry stepping forward into the arena of illiterate farmers in india?
It remains a product of an extensive civilization with evidence of its artifacts piled in heaps and the knowledge of how to create them clearly developed over time.
What you are proposing isn't design, its fantasy. Your argument is basically that because you are too dumb to understand evolution, you will instead propose a magic being popped into existence and created everything by magic.
The real irony is that any one can pair the word "intelligent" with what you propose.
So if you were somehow divorced from that contextualizing knowledge, you would be stumped?
On the contrary, borrowing from the credibility of empiricism for a claim that is not essentially empirical doesn't shroud the degree of intelligence required ....
anyone except you, apparently ....