Three Claims of Uniformitarian Naturalism
- Thread starter SetiAlpha6
- Start date
Can you prove I'm actually intrigued by your politics?
Hey, that was a nice thing to say.
You answered my question directly.... Carry on.
You answered my question directly.... Carry on.
You believe that incessantly asking the same question, while dishonestly ignoring all that you have been told is smart? It makes you look foolish and childish.
Now do you have the intestinal fortitude to answer the question put to you.
Of course all phenomena have natural causes! Show me something that has not had a natural cause? You have 13.83 billion years of natural causes to chose from.
And, you do realize that it was you who conjured up those specious claims?
As usual, that boils down to a complete lack of honesty and integrity on your part, so you make my point, yet again.
Last edited:
No highly dishonest and cunning after being informed of the scientific method.
No again, that's just your dishonest ploy coming into play again. The question asked of religion is "evidence" of any supernatural spaghetti monster, that can explain what science cannot...Realizing of course that science offers a reasonable account of the evolution of life and the universe back to t+10-43 seconds.
No, just lying and dishonesty on your part.
I believe I and others have showed you up for the usual dishonest approach and ignorance that many creationists present. You just do it in a more childish manner.
Fanaticism consists in redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aim.
— George Santayana,
A celibate clergy is an especially good idea, because it tends to suppress any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism.
— Carl Sagan,
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
— Winston Churchill,
Alex,
Harmful mutations in a Species over time and naturally occurring genetic deletions, result in fewer available options for genetic adaptability in the future because of the process of evolution.
Dogs are the observable, repeatable, empirical, defining example of this. The more time that goes by, and the more selection happens, the more genetic code is permanently lost and traits are lost.
This makes it harder for the species to survive and adapt to future environmental changes.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Wrong. Harmful mutations tend not to accumulate, since those organisms that possess them tend not to reproduce as successfully as those that do not possess them.
This is one effect of "natural selection".
Harmful mutations are not happening only in the reproduction systems.
That makes sense to me if a Harmful mutation is big enough to cause a major system problem. Perhaps in the reproduction system, or resulting in a very early death.
But evolution is supposed to happen over long periods of time, over millions or even billions of years, through tiny, often imperceptible, minor changes which would only add up to visible or perceptible major problems after thousands of years.
If that is the case, what would be able to stop an invisible minor but harmful mutation from being passed down the line generation after generation?
Two of my sons have congenital heart defects. Evolution did not select it out over thousands of years before they were born. Evolution passed it down to both of them. And they are both still fully capable of having children and passing it down the line further.
Harmful mutations do not have to always affect reproduction at all.
Last edited:
So, what you're saying is dogs are going extinct?
"Although around the world many families keep dogs as pets, the majority of the world's dogs are free-range. In 2012, the total population of dogs in the world was estimated to be about 525 million; today that number is estimated to be at 900 million"
The causes of CHDs among most babies are unknown. Some babies have heart defects because of changes in their individual genes or chromosomes. CHDs also are thought to be caused by a combination of genes and other factors, such as things in the environment, the mother’s diet, the mother’s health conditions, or the mother’s medication use during pregnancy. For example, certain conditions a mother has, like pre-existing diabetes or obesity, have been linked to heart defects in the baby. Smoking during pregnancy as well as taking certain medications have also been linked to heart defects.
https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/heartdefects/facts.html
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
I'm not a big believer in "the scientific method", which I think is something of a myth. (We've been over this in many previous threads.)
I'm more inclined to think that there are many scientific methods (plural) which may or may not be employed in particular scientific inquiries, depending on the nature of those inquiries. Astronomical and many other observations, controlled experiments, thought experiments, mathematical modeling, other sorts of conceptual modeling in terms of hypothetical mechanisms or whatever, mathematical derivations, and on and on...
As to foundations, I suspect that much of it consists of metaphysical assumptions, logical and mathematical intuitions, and things like that.
If your ultimate point in this thread is to argue that the ultimate underlying foundations of science aren't always well justified, I'll agree with you.
Agreed, other then your "myth"comment. But there is a common basic foundation for the scientific method...Observe, hypothesise, experiment, experiment again and again, data analysis, conclusion.
His ultimate point is to show that all science is questionable and therefor all the conclusions are questionable, thereby squeezing in his sky daddy of choice.
Your view appears to be very balanced to me.
Thanks so much for your comments!!!
To my crazy brain,
Science is not all or nothing. It is a mix. It can be truly great at analyzing current day processes. Applause!
But it is likely not as great at knowing the future or knowing the past. And yes, this is where, an unproven assumption, on either side, can profoundly alter interpretations of data.
And a mathematical model even correctly determined from a current, observable, repeatable process may be substantially off the mark when projected into either the future or the past.
Reality could have been very different than any mathematical model, because trillions of unknown, but real, variables were never included in it. In this kind of arena of Scientific study, involving unwitnessed events in time, a Theory is not automatically equal to Fact.
And I really think that people intuitively know this.
Science is great, but, in my opinion, it has limits.
Can it really answer all questions regarding history, morality, purpose, even human behavior? Perhaps it can to various degrees of success, but precisely?
Can it predict if you or I will be alive tomorrow?
Last edited: