Ken Miller addresses a Skeptic on Theistic Evolution (Part 4)

[SaigyoujiKodoku]

He's not defining it - that's how science has been practiced for at least 300 years. It's called methodological naturalism - the self-imposed restriction of science to looking at natural causes only. Science is not a general search for truth, that's more of what philosophy is. If we accepted methodological supernaturalism or any arguments similar to ID (which is just a rebranding of creationism) then we'd be back to attributing God-like causes for any seemingly inexplicable events.

[LoricaLady]

@SaigyoujiKodoku "That's how science has been practiced for 300 yrs." Don't use the logical fallacy of equivocation. The true sciences, operational sciences, which evo is not, use what is testable, repeatable & observable. Show me 1 ex. of something testable, repeatable & observable that shows evo has ever happened. Either there is evidence of intelligent design or there is not whether anyone likes it or not. There is. Thru irreducible complexity which is observable, testable & repeatable.

[SaigyoujiKodoku]

@LoricaLady Operational science...? That term isn't even used outside of creationist websites. I'm talking primarily about physics, biology and chemistry. Type "evolution predictions" into google, hit the first link. The things you're bringing up can be debunked by spending five minutes on google for crying out loud.

Do tell me though, what novel predictions does intelligent design make? It's starting to sound like you're just parroting creationist talking points.

[LoricaLady]

@SaigyoujiKodoku It's not starting to, but has been sounding all along, like you are parroting evo talking points.

Your underlying assumption is anything that comes from a creationist website is dirty & biased while you just don't deal with examples given of out & out fraud & pseudo science in evo lilt. "The things you are bringing up can be debunked..." So debunk them already. Don't just tell me to Google, use your mind & words. If you can't articulate if you don't understand it. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

@SaigyoujiKodoku Cont. You are correct that the distinctions between operational sciences & historical sciences are mainly dealt with in creation sites. However, this in no way changes the fact that evolution has never been observed to occur, while we can observe gravity, medicine, astronomy etc. Therefore to lump evo in with those kinds of sciences makes for equivocation. I believe I asked you to give just 1 ex. of where evo is observable, testable & repeatable, like them. I'm waiting.

[SaigyoujiKodoku]

@LoricaLady Pests becoming resistant to pesticides, the frequent changes in the distinct species in the "common cold" family forcing us to change vaccines every year, direct observation of speciation in plants, domestication of the grey wolf to modern dogs, etc.

It's not an assumption that creationist websites are "dirty and bias". It's an inference based on clearly dishonest claims on their sites.

[LoricaLady]

@SaigyoujiKodoku Give 1 ex.. of a "dishonest claim." What is dishonest is how you were taught that non evo changes are evo at work. Guess what? The common cold virus is still a common cold virus! It shows, like all life forms, a limited (and the key word here is limited) ability to adapt to its environment. What it never shows is any change to being a non cold virus or any climb up Darwin's so called Tree of Life. A poodle & grey wolf are the same species.How does that show any evo? Cont.

[LoricaLady]

@SaigyoujiKodoku Cont. Pests getting resistant to pesticides shows no evo. Some that are ALREADY more resistant survive & pass on their genetic resistance. What does not happen is that they then become nonpests or start any "Tree" climb. There is much evidence for speciation. But cite evidence that shows change beyond speciation to climbs up the "Tree". 200 bee species. All stay bees. What is "clearly dishonest." is Darwin's claim to have found any oriigin of species,, & his "Tree."

[SaigyoujiKodoku]

@LoricaLady er... what exactly do you think the definition of evolution is? What you just admitted IS evolution. You REALLY need to read some secular sources so you know what it is you're actually arguing against - it's certainly not the theory of evolution by natural selection. 

[LoricaLady]

@SaigyoujiKodoku Evo is not, as a more recent definition of it states, change over time. That is a self serving defintion for life forms do change, but that does not show what evolutionists clailm. They claim that fish turn into salamanders, salamanders into reptiles...apes to man. "Tree" climibs. And claim evidence when there really is none. It should be obvious by now that I read secular sources. I have analyzed evo lit, particularly Talk Spin, er Talk, Origins, right in these little boxes.

[LoricaLady]

@SaigyoujiKodoku Cont. You have made an accusation of "clearly dishonest" writings by creation scientists. Are you going to back that up? I have already listed some examples of clear dishonesty and pseudo science in evo and could give far more. Are you going to show me how Darwin saying he showed Origin of Species isn't "clearly dishonest", or just verbally slam creation scientists & then never give any data to support your claims?

[LoricaLady]

@SaigyoujiKodoku P.S. Kindly do not start citing people like Ken Hovind, or people like Venom FangX (rolling eyes) on YT. Cite actual, science degreed, creation scientists to show your purportedc "clearly dishonest claims.". Answersingenesis has too many for me to count if you don't know where to find them. While you are at it, show me any logical fallacies they are commiting. I can show you more of those than I can count in evo lit, but have already listed some common types seen, below.

[SaigyoujiKodoku]

@LoricaLady Given that you cannot even formulate a definition of evolution, it's clear that you haven't done any actual research into the secular literature. Here's a hint: Change in the frequency of alleles of a given population over time. That's it. What you're opposing, which is the notion of common ancestry, is a consequence of evolution together with mountains of evidence from almost every branch of science. It is NOT, however, a tenet of evolution itself.

[LoricaLady]

@SaigyoujiKodoku I gave 2 exs. of what is called evo (different sites say different things) & told you the 1st is incorrect & the 2nd is totally not evidenced. You dodge telling me what origin of species Darwin ever showed. "Mountains of evidence from almost every branch of science." Great. Spell it out for me how those allele frequency changes lead to any climbs up Darwin's so called Tree of Life. Give 1 ex. and show how it is testable, repeatable, observable. Just one. Still waiting.

[SaigyoujiKodoku]

@LoricaLady It's clear that you're misinformed well beyond my capacity as a student of mathematics/philosophy (not biology) to correct. If you want examples of dishonesty, I'll take answersingenesis since you seem to think that's legit. In its page on evolution, it makes the following assertions:

Evolution is sometimes called Darwinism. (Only by creationists)

Evolution sometimes refers to naturalism. (WTF?)

Historical science is subject to interpretation bias (ALL science is subject to this)

[LoricaLady]

@SaigyoujiKodoku Evolution is indeed sometimes called Darwinism by evolutionists. Wow. That's an unspeakable sin tho, if it was wrong. (But it's not.) Evolution sometimes refers to naturalism: That is also a true statement. Who really reads evo lit the most? You or me? Probably me by far. See 9/99 Nature Mag. "Even if all the data points to intelligent design, it is not science because it is not naturalistic." Ewww the "n" word. No, ALL science is NOT subject to interpretation. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

@SaigyoujiKodoku Cont. Are they arguing about gravity, physics, statistical probabilities & so much more when they build jets? Do they sit at the table while they plan & say, "Well, you know it's just a matter of interpretation as to whether or not these laws of science will be able to tell us if the jet can fly safely." B.S. They agree on the Laws & build something useful (unlike evo).

So those were your examples of creationist lies? Sad/funny.

[LoricaLady]

@SaigyoujiKodoku Cont. While accusing me of being misinformed and unfamiliar with secular evo lit you don't seem to be doing even minimal research to back up your extremely not nice accusation of creation science lying. For ex. it took less than 2 min. thru a Google search to see Darwinism paired with evolution. Google Scientific American Darwinism: Evolution Theory Thrives today. Why do you want to defend something that makes you go to such embarrassing lengths? Rhetorical Q.

[LoricaLady]

@SaigyoujiKodoku Also, prove me wrong and show how Darwin showed any "origin of species." If you cannnot, you should see an ex. of what is "clearly dishonest."

[evolutionisscience]

@SaigyoujiKodoku Is there a chance this person will even drop their response length? It's hard to deal with stupid, but dealing with the equivalent of seven stupid people at once is the dumps. I have no motivation whatsoever to deal with this. I congratulate your endurance.

[LoricaLady]

@evolutionisscience You would no longer have to worry about me responding to you anyway since you have gone into insult mode as is quite typical for evo YT fans when they are pressed to give actual evidence, data, for the theory. In this case you used your insults indirectly, though publicly, to another. If you could give the evidence I requested you would do it in a heart beat. Admit that to yourself at least and start coming out of the matrix. You're on ignore for me now, though.. Bye!

[evolutionisscience]

@LoricaLady Sorry, dude, but when you say stuff like, "The fruit flies were still fruit flies," it just tells me that you have no idea what you're talking about. So instead of arguing with you, we're all here to educate you. It makes me sit here and wonder why you're arguing on a topic of which you do not even have a basic understanding. That, in my mind, is the behavior of a stupid person. I don't think it'd be difficult to find someone who disagrees with me.

[LoricaLady]

@SaigyoujiKodoku I see I neglected to respond to one Q. What predictions does intelligent design make? That at the (so called) earliest levels on up (tho the Geologic Column does not really exist except on paper) one would find fully formed and complex life forms. They would show no signs of having been built bit by bit since the theory of evo has no place for "saved up for future purposes" useless parts. Look at the Nautilus as one of innumerable exs. What use would an incomplete spiral be?

[ClamCrunchy]

@LoricaLady The claims of special creation intelligent design, and the like, have been carefully considered by the scientific community and rejected. Rather than waste time on wrong ideas, why not modify your belief to theistic evolution? There are many dozens of quite amazing geologic columns in the world; to deny they exist is like saying Mount Everest doesn't exist. Rather a colossal blunder.

[LoricaLady]

@ClamCrunchy Why don't you modify your belief (& belief is the correct word) system and tell exactly where one example of the Geologic Column can be seen on the planet earth. It was a 19th century construct based on no evidence. Subsequent digs have never shown it to exist - though evolutionists have all sorts of creative ways to explain that all away. But I'm waiting. Tell where the geologic column exists. Anywhere. Don't give the ex. of the 1 place it is seen - in imaginary pictures.

[ClamCrunchy]

@LoricaLady Geologic columns side, the best evidence for evolution comes from genetics. Even if there were no fossils, evolution could be deduced from genetics alone, beyond reasonable doubt.

[LoricaLady]

@ClamCrunchy 0 fossil evidence = 0 evidence. Genetics "evidence" is based on the usual logical fallacies of Correlation Does Not Imply Causation, Fallacy of the Single Cause, Incomplete Comparison etc. There are 0 fossils which can be shown to have birthed any progeny whatsoever much less any leading to "whale" or other evolution. In short, there is no evidence anywhere. Ex. The fused chromosome "eviidence." Some folk have an additional fusion and its not from apes so the argument is bogus.

[ClamCrunchy]

@LoricaLady The key genetic evidence for evolution are cytochrome C and protein homologies in general, ERVs, pseudogenes and certain genes (such as genes in the human genome that code for tails) that have been switched off by control genes. I would not be able to explain these features without evolutionary theory in a plausible manner, if I were a creationist.

[LoricaLady]

@ClamCrunchy "Homologies" means the ubiquitous use of the Correlation Does Not ImplyCausation logical fallacy. Give me a phrase to Google that you feel is describing this process the best and on the Sabbath (Fri. eve to Sat. eve for me) I will analyze it in these little boxes. Should be interesting.

[ClamCrunchy]

@LoricaLady Alright, but Youtube is really not the best place to explain complex topics in full detail. What is consider to be basically irrefutable evidence for evolution is cytochrome C. Tell me what you think of it, or how you would explain it.

[LoricaLady]

@ClamCrunchy I have found it quite possible to debunk evo articles with a few of these little boxes. I would prefer that you give me an actual website and page but if not I will find one on my own. I'd rather it be one you have read lately though.

[LoricaLady]

@ClamCrunchy Cont. Before you give me the link may I suggest that you comb through it carefully yourself and check for the following things. (1) Words like "most likely...must have...probably...could have...would have...we propose a model...". (2) Correlation Does Not Imply Causation logical fallacy. In other words assuming if 2 things are similar in some ways that means one came from the other. (3) Circular reasoning - maybe not right out in the open but assumed. Cont.

[ClamCrunchy]

@LoricaLady Yeah, problem is though, science in all cases cannot promise absolute certainty. We live in a very complex world, and absolute certainty is nearly impossible to achieve. I also realize that correlation does not imply causation, so please stop reminding me of this.

[LoricaLady]

@ClamCrunchy "Science in all cases cannot promise absolute certainty." Not true. 100% of times a human who give birth will produce a baby, 100% of times the sun will come up in the morning, the moon will go through a predictable monthly cycle, the stars will follow their predictable cycles, gravity will keep your from jumping beyond a certain height, cows will stay cows, bacteria will stay bacteria, & on & on. Your evo lit is claiming "absolute proof" for evo. Cont.

[ClamCrunchy]

@LoricaLady When I mean in all cases, I mean, all scientific statements cannot be said with absolute certainty.

[LoricaLady]

@ClamCrunchy We live in a world where scientific statements are frequenlty made with absolute certainty. Again, would you be surprised if the sun didn't come up? Don't you count on your knowledge of the basic laws of physics and gravity to be consistent so you get thru traffic safely? Did you ever go to see a new baby at the nursery and see something that wasn't human? Have you ever heard of a bacteria that stopped being a bacteria? Yes, some scientific things are not yet known. Cont

[LoricaLady]

@ClamCrunchy Cont. Where I have the biggest problem with evo theory is how they present speculation as if it is scientific truth. There are many things you can say based on Laws of Science. There are some we do not yet know for sure. But to present what we do not see evidence for, to present speculation in its place is pseudo science. For ex. primal pond is taught to children as science. It actually flies in the face of the Law of Biogenesis which says life comes from life 100% of X. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

@ClamCrunchy Then they constantly point to various animals bones & act like they know what their reproductive life produced. They don't say, "We don't know with absolute certainty, but..." They say, "Look! Evidence! Proof! This IS a transitional fossil." Claiming speculation as evidence is characteristic of evo theory. If they had real evidence I'm sure they would provide that instead.

[LoricaLady]

@ClamCrunchy One cannot claim "irrefutable proof" than demure and say "Welll...absolutely certainty is nearly impossible."  When I analyze the evo lit page I will talk about correlation does not imply causation if I see it, as expected. Not to be annoying, but I don't just write these posts to the person who is reading them but to any lurkers (some of whom I have heard from). If I'm going to analyze it, I'm going to analyze it. And I'm going to analyze it.

[ClamCrunchy]

@LoricaLady I mean evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. To be honest, neither one of us is likely to change the mind of the other, so I cannot help but feel that this discussion wont go anywhere.

[LoricaLady]

@ClamCrunchy Ya never know. I used to believe in evolution hook, line & sinker. My feeling is always, If this person never sees it, maybe some lurker will. And if this person doesn't see it now, maybe he will later.

:-)

[ClamCrunchy]

@LoricaLady I actually agree with something you said. On your profile, you said something like, if a person understands something, they'll be able to explain it in their own words. I really agree with this. You really understand something if you can explain it yourself. I think that, when looking at the positions of fundamentalist religionists or fundamentalist atheists, the truth is probably somewhere in-between.

[LoricaLady]

@ClamCrunchy I think it can be easily established that evo is not true without looking at religion or "fundamentalism" or atheism at all, just by looking at science and the rules of logic. There are some atheists who don't believe in evo simply because they see that it does not match the observable data & makes claims which science cannot support. I believe too often people try to put this whole issue into a religious basket so to speak.

[ClamCrunchy]

@LoricaLady I think you're mistaken. The only atheists that don't accept evolution are Raelians, but they themselves cannot explain where the aliens came from. Sorry, evolution does match all empirical data. But you must also realize that evolution does not imply atheism: no scientific theory can prove or disprove the existence of a God.

[LoricaLady]

@ClamCrunchy Raelians? All I know about atheists & evo is what I've seen on the net & I have seen some saying they don't buy evo. But it's not a matter of who believes. It's a matter of the data. Tomorrow I will go thru an article from evo lit as promised to see if they really have "empirical data" or not. I believe there is no empirical data anywhere at any time to support evo. Always it is the same when examined carefully: logical fallacies piled on speculation presented as evidence.

[ClamCrunchy]

@LoricaLady I;m sorry, you're simply wrong. I suggest considering theistic evolution.

[LoricaLady]

@ClamCrunchy I already tried theistic evo. Then I decided, to be fair, & see what the creationist scientists were saying. You see the result. Okey dokey then. Let's see what I could find to show that cytochrome C provides evidence for evo. Google: Evolution Evidence [Yeal right] From Living Organisms at "bioweb" source. Scroll down to Biochemistry. Whaddid I say? Whaddid I say would be in an evo lit article?  Right off the bat Correlation Does Not Imply Causation logical fallacy. Cont

[LoricaLady]

@ClamCrunchy Cont. "Biochemistry reveals similarities...between organisms of different species." Great deduction Sherlocks. Uh, 'course we can see similarities by simply eyeballing various animals, too, so this should be the opposite of a surprise. Here we're seeing not only Correlation Does Not Imply Causation but the Fallacy of the Single Cause. Yeal, there are similarities. What they aren't showing is how this gives evidence for any animals' climbs up Darwin's Tree. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

@ClamCrunchy Cont. Then what else did I say there would be? Lots of theoretical words and here are some seen: "...Cytochrome C is evidence that all...probably [!]...." Wait a minute. How can "evidence" be connected to "probably"?? That's not science (none of that page is science & I don't just mean the Biochemistry part). Evidence isn't "probably." Evidence IS. But to continue... "It is unlikely [!] that most would have evolved...Such similarities...suggest [!]..." Cont.

[LoricaLady]

@ClamCrunchy Cont. "...This evidence implies [!]...These similarities can be considered evidence that [here we go again] the organism probably [!]....a far more probable [!] explanation of these similarities..." And on it goes. There is 0 evidence there. All the words with [!] are based on speculation which presumes, but shows no evidence for the presumption, that evo and only evo can explain the similarities. As I said, evo lit is built on piles of logical fallacies piled on top of...Cont.

[LoricaLady]

@ClamCrunchy Cont. ...speculation presented as if it is evidence. That's not all. They ignore anything that doesn't fit into their theory. Expelled tells about that. For ex., I see you are into math so you might want to check out the genetics math the way evo looks at it AND the way a creationist looks at it. Google James S. Alan Cytachrome C answersingenesis. I notice evo fans keep saying we are 94% like a chimp. Is a chimp able to do just 6% less than us in... Cont.

[ClamCrunchy]

@LoricaLady Also, I don't bother to read most of you posts anyway, so you're kinda wasting your time.

[LoricaLady]

@ClamCrunchy You are the one who said that there were numerous geologic columns around the world, but would not list 1 when asked. You are the one who said you had "irrefutable proof" that Cytachrome C showed evo, then started talking (totally erroneously) about how science (lumping in evo with the real sciences) doesn't have anything certain to say. You kept sending me posts and started this exchange with me and then said "I don't bother to read your posts." Rude & unscientific & on ignore.

[ClamCrunchy]

@LoricaLady No point in doing so. It's very easy to do this research yourself.

[ClamCrunchy]

Much of your posts are difficult to follow and full of idiosyncratic and erroneous reasoning.

[LoricaLady]

@ClamCrunchy You have followed the usual pattern of YT evo fans. When pressed for actual evidence you don't give it but start being insulting instead and tossing in the red herring of religion - which I never mentioned.

I still hope you come out of the matrix but I won't know since you are on ignore.

[ClamCrunchy]

@LoricaLady Well, no I'm not. I've had dozens of conversations with people like yourself, and they simply led nowhere. We're not going to make each other change our minds, so there is little point in this. 

[LoricaLady]

@ClamCrunchy Cont. ...baking a cake, organizing a car pool, drawing a house, playing a musical instrument, making a budget, helping a kid with homework? Something is wrong with that "only 6% difference". It's like statistics. You can play with the numbers & get what you think supports your point of view & most people won't catch on. My friend, when I believed in evo I was into theistic evolutiion because evo is a belief system that has no scientific support. Come out of the matrix.

[ClamCrunchy]

@LoricaLady The red pill is theistic evolution. The blue pill is fundamentalism. Take the red pill, and come with me into the matrix.

[LoricaLady]

@ClamCrunchy Cont. Circular reasoning goes like this: Evolution causes change. We see change. Look, evo is proven! That leads also, often, into (4) the Fallacy of the Single Cause. i.e. And only evolution can explain this! (5) This is the part where you have to be really alert, mho. Speculation presented as if it is evidence, a done deal, scientific data.

[evolutionisscience]

@ClamCrunchy This individual has no understanding of evolutionary theory. I don't see why you're trying.

[ClamCrunchy]

@SaigyoujiKodoku You're exactly right. I'm a student of physics and mathematics and I have never, ever heard of the terms "operational science" and "historical science" outside of creationist literature. These terms are not found in textbooks or standard scientific literature as far as I know.

[LoricaLady]

@ClamCrunchy Cont. In case I didn't say that clearly enough...Thru a phrase from Google or just thru a link, give me an evo lit article to analyze here on the Sabbath in terms of logical fallacies and any (always the case) speculation presented as if it is actual data.

[LoricaLady]

I have seen a YT vid where Miller is on the Colbert show. He says that there that as a Roman Catholic he believes "Jesus Christ is the Creator of all that is seen and unseen." Yet he holds workshops on The Collapse of Intelligent Design! The 1st law of logic is that 2 contradictory statements cannot both be true. How can Yeshua, aka Jesus, create all that is and not use intelligent design? But this is the kind of illogical double talk that evolution thrives one.

[SaigyoujiKodoku]

@LoricaLady Don't be a banana. "Intelligent Design" obviously refers to a particular movement inherently opposed to natural evolution. There is no contradiction - you're merely equivocating.

[LoricaLady]

@SaigyoujiKodoku Don't be rude & insulting. Ok you explain to me how the Circle of Willis and the Vagus nerve are going to function before all parts are complete & connected. That's for starters. I have lots more where those come from, because all of life starting at the cellular level shows irreducible complexity which means intelligent design. Plz don't say "might have...could have... probably...all scientists believe evolution is true...." Explain. Give data, not speculation.. Cont.

[SaigyoujiKodoku]

@LoricaLady So.. if our knowledge is incomplete, evolution is false? Irreducible complexity is nothing more than the observation that something's structure exceeds our current understanding of how it came to be. Many objects once hailed as irreducibly complex have become well understood in terms of their evolution, so this is just a really bad argument.

There's a reason you won't find the concept of irreducible complexity in the scientific literature. It's bogus.

[LoricaLady]

@SaigyoujiKodoku So if evo doesn't stand up to observation then we just say, "Oh, well, that's because our knowledge isn't complete yet." That would be faith based not science based. "Many objects once hailed as i.c. have become well understood in terms of evolution." No, examples of i.c. have been "debunked" using speculation presented as if it is data and/or incomplete & irrelevant. For ex. in trying to explain away the i.c. of the eye we get lengthy descriptions of irrelevant animals. Cont

[LoricaLady]

@SaigyoujiKodoku Cont. For ex. we are told about bugs & fish & other creatures that have simpler eyes. So? Even evolutionists don't say we "evolved" from them so such arguments are meaningless. They have eyes for their niches in the environment but that does not show, just because theirs are therefore simpler, that ours were ever like theirs. Speculation based on nothing, even illogic, is presented as "refuation." How could 1 of OUR eyes work until all its parts are complete & in place? Cont

[LoricaLady]

@SaigyoujiKodoku Cont. It would be simple if we only had to read "scientific" lit. But we must use OUR minds. The evo lit gave us Haeckle's fraudulent ontogeny recapitulates philogeny, a host of proven false "transitional" ape men, the peppered moth "evidence" where the moths all stayed the exact same species, the so called evo of nyon eating bacteria which all stayed the same species & reverted back to former lives in normal ponds, fraudulent art works to this day, on & on. Use YOUR mind.

[LoricaLady]

@SaigyoujiKodoku Cont. "That's why you won't find the concept of i.c. in the scientific lilt." In 9/99 in Nature Mag,, a big evo lit source, 1 man said "Even if all the data points to intelligent design it would not be science because it is not naturalistic." You call that science? I call science not rejecting "all the data" (!) but embracing it wherever it leads whether we like it or not. The truth is the truth, even if it doesn't match our world view our skewed definition of science.

[SaigyoujiKodoku]

@LoricaLady "...it should be made clear in the classroom that science, including evolution, has not disproved God's existence because it cannot be allowed to consider it (presumably)." Did you miss that little piece of context, or did you just copy your part from a creationist website? He's giving his understanding (quite correct, in this case) of scientific methodology. Namely, that supernatural causes are excluded from science, independent of their truth/falsity.

[LoricaLady]

@SaigyoujiKodoku No, he is not correct. If there is data, and there would have to be in the case of "all the data" then the data would be naturalistic. So really in a way he is contradicting himself. He is saying, "Even if all the [naturalistic because from nature] data supports intelligent design...it is not naturalistic." That doesn't even make sense. He is also making an assumption that "intelligent design" has to imply God, aka YHWH of the Bible. This is not necessarily so. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

@SaigyoujiKodoku Cont. Who gave him the right to define science as something excludes the very possibility of intelligent design, of anything possibly supernatural. Let's see now. If a supernatural being did create everything, then scientific laws would be included in everything. So how could that supernatural being be outside of science? He is defining science in a way he likes but not what science really is. Science is a search for truth wherever the data leads.

[LoricaLady]

@SaigyoujiKodoku Cont. Also you skirted the whole basis of thtis vid and my response to it showing the the first law of logic is being broken.  All of evo is based on logical fallacies piled high on speculations which are presented as if they are scientific evidence. Yes there is a contradiction in what Miller said. And you need to look up the definiton of equivocation.

[evolutionisscience]

@LoricaLady What logical fallacies?

[LoricaLady]

@evolutionisscience Probably the #1 logical fallacy is Correlation Does Not Imply Causation. They find a fossil out in the field that has some minor similarity to another animal. Then, tho they can't do paternity testing on it, tho they can't know that it isn't just another of countless dead end extinct animals, they don't say "Maybe this is..." they say "This IS a transitional fossil!" The same fallacy is used to "support evo" with genetics, really n all fields. Maybe 2nd most common...Cont

[LoricaLady]

@evolutionisscience Cont. Fallacy of The Single Cause. Since humans have a fused chromsome that makes a superficial number match with chimps we are told the fusion comes from chimps tho there is no way (as usual) to test that assertion. Again, it is not presented as a theory, which it is, but as a fact. Now about 1 in 1000 people have an additiionial fused chromosome. Many animals have them. Did those other people get the extra fusion from apes? No one even suggests it. If 1 why not both?

[LoricaLady]

@evolutionisscience Cont. Fallacy of Incomplete Comparison. Yes, there is a number match to chimps if you count in the fusion. But chimps & tobacco both have 48 chromsomes, birds & moths & bats all fly, snake & worms & caterpillars slither. In those cases the differences are so obvious they don't say one came from the other. You can't see into the genes under most circumstances so it is easy to make much of a chimp number match. However, what is IN the genes is way not the same.

[LoricaLady]

@evolutionisscience Cont. Equivocation Logical Fallacy. We are sometimes told "Well, you believe in physics, in gravity, in aeronautics, in medicine don't you? Then you have to believe in evolultion because it is science too."

The former things are all testable, repeatable and observable. They fall into the category of operational sciences, which evo is not. Not a valid comparison at all. Red Herrings & Strawman. For ex. in Talk Origin's write up on the "evolution" of woodpeckers. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

@evolutionisscience Cont. They spend a lot of time talking about the hyoid bone of a chicken, with lots of fancy charts & references. So, what evidence is there that a chicken ever gave rise to a woodpecker? What does that have to do with the woodpecker's hard skull, it's sticky,.barbed tongue or the fact that some woodpeckers have a tongue that wraps around the back of the skull and exists thru a nostril? These are the salient points,t he ones the creationists are pointing out. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

@evolutionisscience Cont. Often we are expected to fill in the blanks with our imaginations based on things that we have been taught to believe about evo. For ex. we are to assume - with no data to support it - that because a chicken has a certain kind of hyoid bone that means that the woodpecker had a similar set up at one time. Again, there is no evidence for this. Speculation w/o evidence to back it up is pseudo science & this is offered all the time. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

@evolutionisscience Cont. I might add that in addition to logical fallacies (not all were listed here) we sometimes get flat out lies. For ex. in that same TO write up on woodpeckers they claim at the start that creationists are lying. They don't tell what the "lie" is or give any references. At the end of the article there is a grey box and the accusation that what is inside it is lies. All inside it is true! This is the tip of the icerberg in terms of deciet - tho I'm not saying all lie.

[evolutionisscience]

@LoricaLady You've made a lot of points but to begin with I'd like clarify a few things.

1. When it comes to the verification of a theory, evidence must be consistent. Transitional forms are such consistent evidence.

2. Theories are tentative. This is a built-in assumption when a scientists talks about black holes, geology, and, yes, evolution.

3. Evolutionary theory -- on both the history and the processes -- is repeatable, testable, and observable.

Care to correct anything before we continue?

[LoricaLady]

@evolutionisscience "Evidence must be consistent." There is 0 evidence for transtional fossils. That is what is consistent. For there to be evidence you must have what is testable, repeatable & observable. What is testable, repeatable or observable to show that ambulocetus, a hairy animal with rear hooves, ever had any descendants significantly different from itself much les that it led to whales? Pointing out some minor similarities between its ear & whales shows nothing about its progeny.

[evolutionisscience]

@LoricaLady 1 You need to limit your comments a bit. It's impossible to address all of what you say. I will try. "There is 0 evidence for transtional fossils." That's the incorrect angle. The fossils themselves are evidence. They are called 'transitional fossils' for the same reason a blood-covered weapon found at the scene of a murder is called a 'murder weapon'. It's evidence which is consistent with the proposed idea, and the name is the way to integrate that evidence into the theory.

[LoricaLady]

@evolutionisscience A murder weapon is not analogous to a fossil. A murder weapon may be registerred to someone. That's evidence. Blood on it may have certain DNA. That's evidence. Can the gun tell you the descendants the gun owner had? "The inner ear of this animal over there has some slight similarities to that of whales therefore we can tell you what kind of progeny that it had and state, as evidence, that it led to whales" is not evidence. It is wild conjecture & pseudo science.

[evolutionisscience]

@LoricaLady 2 "What is testable, repeatable or observable to show that ambulocetus..."

Your question has a simple answer. You simply need to think about what physical evidence would be consistent with the idea that ambulocetus had descendents. If we found numerous fossils of animals with unique character combinations between whales and ambulocetus, they would be CONSISTENT with the idea that whales evolved from ambulocetus.

[LoricaLady]

@evolutionisscience "You simply need to think about" means I need to imagine things. According to evo theory. "Consistent with the idea" is not evidence. It is circular reasoning. You would not bet your salary dbl or 0 that ambulocetus led to whales because in your heart you know there is no way to tell that. You know they have shown no real evidence. Why? Because its not evidence.

[LoricaLady]

@evolutionisscience Cont. You might want to Google Colin Patterson Quotes. That world famous paleontologist, former head of the Brit. Museum of Natural Hist. said many damnings things aboutr evo. For ex. he said "There is not 1 water tight case" for any transitional fossil. He said claims for them "are not science for there is no way to put them to the test." People holler "Quote mine" & reply with things like Talk Origins spin. What they don't do is give a quote showing he refuted any...

[evolutionisscience]

@LoricaLady 3 "Colin Patterson" Yeah, I've read all about him. Apparently, he was talking about systematics. If you'd studied up on biological classification, you'd understand that it is not an argument in opposition to the consistency of transitional fossils to evolutionary theory. But my guess is even if Patterson walked up to you and told you this himself, you'd simply ignore him.

"Give 1 ex. of where evolution has ever been observed, repeated or tested."

Experiment or example?

[LoricaLady]

@evolutionisscience "Apparently he was..." So you just go with "apparently" and don't bother to offer any...evidence?

He said what he said. It's well documented. Trying to dismiss it by making up an imaginary scenario on what he might say to me, instead of talking about what he actually did say, falls right along into evo faith based kind of thinking. Show, if you can that he denied what he said or that it was out of context.

[LoricaLady]

@evolutionisscience "Experiment or example" of evo, you ask. Give either. Remember tho that most of evo's experiments are done in hi tech labs requiring intelligent design and a blue print from nature so if you use one of those you'll need to provide data to show that nature did what the intelligent designers did.

[LoricaLady]

@evolutionisscience Cont...of what he said. They never give quotes to show he was quoted out of context. This is because he expressed embarrassment at how creationists publicized his quotes, but he never said that he was misquoted or quoted out of context. "Evolution theory...on both the history and the processes - is repeatable, testable & observable." Give 1 ex. of where evolution has ever been observed, repeated or tested. The fruit fly experiments that yielded only fruit flies. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

@evolutionisscience Cont. They produced mostly deformed, never more viable than the original...fruit flies. The Miller & Urey experiments were supposed to show life can come from inorganic matter. Did they get life? Nope, light years away. They got the wrong handed kind of amino acids, namely l & r when life can only exist with l. Their experiment used no oxygen & earth studies show there is oxygen at all levles of the planet. Yet kids got their info in textbooks as ex. of abiogenesis!

[evolutionisscience]

@LoricaLady "They produced mostly deformed, never more viable than the original...fruit flies"

Were the fruit flies adapting to their environment?

"The Miller & Urey experiments"

That's an experiment more closely related to abiogenesis. It has no place in a discussion on evolution. Hold onto it, though. We can talk about it later.

[LoricaLady]

@evolutionisscience "Were the fruit flies adapting to their environment?" I already said none were more viable than the originals. You are seeing the exact opposite of evo. Scientists tried to make them evolve. Thousands of generations. They only got fruit flies. But you are still trying to make this utterly failed experimient somehow fit as a support for evo. Adaptation is not evolution. Nylon eating bacteria adapted to eating nylon but they stayed bacteria, even the same species.

[LoricaLady]

@evolutionisscience You say the M & U experiments, since they are about abiogenesis,have "no place in a discussion on evo." 1st I was using that as an ex. of the horrible "science" that can be found in the much touted evo (!) peer reviews which you were holding up for me to believe in. 2nd abiogenesis has been part of evo think since Darwin. Since creationists started asking how life can come from inorganic matter, some evolutionists, not all, have tried to distance themselves from the issue.

[LoricaLady]

@evolutionisscience Cont. We are told that things like gene duplication, using high tech labs and (ahem!) intelligent design show what could have happened in nature. They had to use pre existing blueprints from nature & only copycat yet we are told we are seeing what evo can do. We are told that nylon eating bacteria is an ex. of evo. How could that be? It never even changed it species & eats normally when put in normal ponds again. You are told lots of things. But what is true, my friend?

[evolutionisscience]

@LoricaLady "They had to use pre existing blueprints from nature & only copycat yet we are told we are seeing what evo can do"

Did they physically change the genes, or did they place organisms in an environment for them to change?

"We are told that nylon eating bacteria is an ex. of evo. How could that be? It never even changed it species"

You don't know how organisms are classified, or how organisms are proposed to have evolved. Bacteria will always be classified as bacteria.

[LoricaLady]

@evolutionisscience Your response on classification did not answer how nylon eating bacteria supposedly evolved when they stayed the same kind of bacteria & eat & act normally when put in normal ponds. Yes, bacteria will always be classified as bacteria since they always...stay bacteria. If they quit being bacteria, which they never ever do tho there are gazillions of them multiplying at rapid fire rates, if they started to climb up Darwin's "Tree of Life" & be non bacteria...but they don't.

[LoricaLady]

@evolutionisscience "Theories are tentative." Ah, but so often evolutionists don't say, This is a theory. Instead they tell children "Ambulocetus is a Prewhale." Built in assumptions are not science if that is all you have. Would your 5th grade science teacher have let you turn in the hypothesis only & call it your scientific evidence? Evolutionists do this constantly! They can have all the assumptions & theories they want but when they tell children those are science, there is a problem.

[evolutionisscience]

@LoricaLady "but so often evolutionists don't say, This is a theory"

...??? When you are taught in science class that all theories are tentative, we tend not to have to use "might/should/could" language associated with tentativeness. It's already been conveyed by teaching that all theories are tentative.

"turn in the hypothesis only & call it your scientific evidence"

Except no one's done that. Consistent evidence has been gathered to establish evolutionary theory.

[LoricaLady]

@evolutionisscience "We tend not to use might should could" language." Actually evo lit is replete with such words, right aong with "probably, likely, must have" etc. Then they call that evidence. What is testable, repeatable and observable to show that anything at all ever evolved? Give 1 example, give the data & defend it.

[Meskiagkasher]

I find it funny that he refers to a deistic god's character as dubious because he stays uninvolved. but how is that better than the biblical deity? has miller ever read the bible? his god is a complete and utter dick.

[achilles197474]

In his book, Finding Darwin's God, Miller says that the expansion of space at the Big Bang was controlled within a tolerance of 1/(1X10 to the power of 1 million). Without this degree of fine tuning, the universe would have collapsed on itself and we would not be here. There would be nothing rather than something. It is mathematical proof of God's design. If there is a God who designs the universe, as Miller claims, it makes perfect sense to belief that the Creator also designed life.

[ClamCrunchy]

@achilles197474 Or, it could be that a massive number of other universes exist as some String Theorists believe, and the universe arose out of some kind of quantum mechanical event. I don't think anyone knows which is true.

[SaigyoujiKodoku]

@achilles197474 If the universe collapsed upon itself, it is unclear what would happen - our theories are inadequate to predict beyond a certain point. For all we know the whole thing could "start over". Not only that, but we don't know what produced the so called fine tuned constants. As it turns out, some constants once believed to be fine tuned are actually incidental, so a different value would be inconsequential.

The fine-tuning argument is the second worst argument in all of philosophy.

[achilles197474]

@SaigyoujiKodoku The strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, the force of gravity, the precise rate of expansion at the moment of creation, the molecular weight of H2O and its capacity to absorb heat, the position of the earth vis a vis the sun, the unusual stability of our sun, the size and positioning of moon, the magnetic field generated by the molten core of iron and nickel, these constants and characteristics point to design and intent of the Creator.

[SaigyoujiKodoku]

@achilles197474 You could list examples all day, it still doesn't address fundamental problems with the argument.

1. What evidence is there that these "fine-tuned" constants could have taken on other values?

2. What reasoning precludes the possibility of these values from being physically determined?

3. If one accepts the argument, then is the universe also fine-tuned for cancers/viruses/parasites?

4. Less than 0.00000000000000000001% of the universe supports life. Fine-tuned? What?

[lizardman77]

Deism states God does not (most likely) intervene in the day to day lives of humans. No more, no less.

[chh5555]

What??? he's not an atheist?? That's a bit difficult to understand but it's probably good for the sake of politics to have a god person defending evolution.

[Angmarr]

@chh5555

No hes a roman catholic, this is a direct quote from his book Finding Darwin's God, "because of Evolution [...] not in spite of"

[Meskiagkasher]

@chh5555 yeah, he's pretty appalling. a follower of magic is a disgrace for the field of biology.

[Roper122]

Miller is a great weapon against creationists...

But when it comes to defending god, he's pretty weak.

( of course god is harder to defend than evolution...because gods imaginary )

[Valelacerte]

Oh Ken, what the fuck is up with your brain?! You help expose the ID/Creationist bullshitters for their lack of scientific rigour, and then you start prattling on about a "god" being "outside" of nature.

[lizardman77]

Theism is just as much a statement on God's personality. He then states his friend's view is that God doesn't need his finger in the dyke and that what he created can run itself- that is deism.

[viewertube42]

@lizardman77 Deism would state that God just needed to put the universe in motion, not neccessarily design it which would be Theism

[CBALLEN]

Miller is as much a Christian as my dog is a cat.How can someone claim the name Christian and then deny everything that God has said,of course Miller calls himself a Catholic,so that explains volumns.

[thesparitan]

@CBALLEN So all catholics dont believe in god, LOL. Francis Collins believe in evolution and is a a born again evangelical Christian. Does that mean he is not a christian. So people are only Christians if they agree with you, OHHH that makes sense