theophilus vs. Occam's Razor

[theophilus]

This is just an observation on Occam's Razor as often employed on this board.

First, William of Occan was a Chrsitian, so he could not have intended any dictum as a tool to deny God.

Second, there is apparently no evidence that Occam ever knew about his famous namesake.

Third, OR merely suggests (after all, it is not a law, is it) that "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity." Thus the famous Law of Parsimony.

This says nothing, however, about what constitutes necessity. The mere assertion of an idea does not automatically mean that that idea is adequate to explain a phenomenon. There must be some correlation between that idea and the phenomenon being explained.
Further, there must be knowledge that the theory is or, at least, could be true.

So, simply declaring that God is disqualified as the explanation of anything because there are simpler explanations begs both these questions.

First, merely positing evolution is meaningless unless it is known that evolution IS capable of explaining the phenomenon. This is clearly not true.

Second, and related, there is no way to evaluate if evolution is or could be true because it is untestable and unfalsifiable.

Third, it is not at all clear that evolution is a "simpler" explanation than God. Evolution is based on the confluance of an infinite number of potential events and constrained by time and space.

God, on the other hand is a "simple" being and is not constrained by time and space.

So, atheists should be careful to just whip out OC whenever they want an easy answer. They must first demonstrate that their alternative meets these tests.

[Just_An_Atheist]

"First, William of Occan was a Chrsitian, so he could not have intended any dictum as a tool to deny God."

So what? We're interested in how it could be used, period.

"Second, there is apparently no evidence that Occam ever knew about his famous namesake."

Again, so?

"The mere assertion of an idea does not automatically mean that that idea is adequate to explain a phenomenon."

The law is relevant only when all things are equal. If we have equal, or no evidence for two hypotheses then the simpler one tends to be correct.

"Third, it is not at all clear that evolution is a "simpler" explanation than God. Evolution is based on the confluance of an infinite number of potential events and constrained by time and space."

And God could have done it an infinite number of ways, so once again we are either stuck with just the universe or both God and the uviverse. Once again, naturalism wins.

"God, on the other hand is a "simple" being and is not constrained by time and space."

True, but your stuck with (so far) two things. Once again, I ask you: which is simpler, just a universe, or a universe plus God?

[Just_An_Atheist]

"Evolution is based on..."

When did he mention evolution!

[Philosoft]

Originally posted by theophilus
First, William of Occan was a Chrsitian, so he could not have intended any dictum as a tool to deny God.
Irrelevant. The worth of a philosophical tool is embedded in its usefulness, not the putative intentions of its creator.
Second, and related, there is no way to evaluate if evolution is or could be true because it is untestable and unfalsifiable.
Falsifying evolution: show that organisms don't change over time; show that all offspring are perfect genetic mosaics of their parents. Falsifying neo-Darwinism: find a Homo erectus fossil in Cambrian strata.
Third, it is not at all clear that evolution is a "simpler" explanation than God. Evolution is based on the confluance of an infinite number of potential events
You're conflating evolution and something else here. Evolution only precludes Creationism, not God.
and constrained by time and space.
What kind of objection is this?
God, on the other hand is a "simple" being and is not constrained by time and space.
Man, you ought to be arrested for torturing logic and semantics. What does Occam have to do with time and space constraints?

[Jobar]

I'm going to take 3 official actions here.

1. Theophilus, you have hijacked this thread and dragged it off in a direction I'm sure CV did not mean it to go. It's a discussion about OR *and* multiple universes, and you just want to diss OR. Consider yourself whacked about the head and shoulders with a long-dead trout, theophilus.

2. I'm going to split this thread, and re-title all but the OP 'theophilus vs. Occam's Razor'. And I'm going to note that theo goes into this battle without even a rusty nail file, so my money's on William.

3. Comestible Venom, I've read that article, and a fascinating one it is, too. 4 possible levels of multiple universes- hell, my mind wasn't far enough out to conceive that even doing 'shrooms and acid simultaneously, back in the seventies. (Guess I should have added more drugs to the mix, hm?) ;) But, it's not really a topic for EoG, so I'm moving it to S&S. Jobar.

[Goober]

First, William of Occan was a Chrsitian, so he could not have intended any dictum as a tool to deny God.
Yeah, and the guy who discovered fission didn't intend for it to be used as a weapon, so that must mean all atom bombs are a fiction.

Or how about: The PoE was invented by Christian theologians, so they could not have intended it to be a tool to deny god. Therefore, any use of it to deny god is wrong, irrelevant of what to PoE atually says.

Why did you even bother to write this sentence? Can't you see how irrelevent it is?

[JaeIsGod]

*Gets the bandages*

Greater people then us have cut themselves with the Razor :)

[bd-from-kg]

theophilus:

First, merely positing evolution is meaningless unless it is known that evolution IS capable of explaining the phenomenon. This is clearly not true.

What phenomenon are you referring to? Certainly the theory of evolution is capable of explaining the origin of species, but admittedly it’s incapable of explaining, say, radioactive decay.

Second, and related, there is no way to evaluate if evolution is or could be true because it is untestable and unfalsifiable.

If you knew even a little bit about science you’d know how ridiculous and ignorant this statement is. Creationism, on the other hand, really is untestable and unfalsifiable. Once you postulate an omnipotent, omniscience, unknowable being as the explanation of a phenomenon, anything goes. Absolutely nothing could falsify it.

Third, it is not at all clear that evolution is a "simpler" explanation than God.

The correct measure of the “simplicity” of a new theory is how much the existing framework has to be modified to accommodate it. Evolution postulates absolutely no new entities, no new physical laws, no mysterious coincidences. It fits very comfortably indeed into the pre-existing framework. If evolution isn’t “simpler” than God, no scientific theory is simpler than God. And if that means that the “God” hypothesis is to be preferred, we might as well abandon science altogether in favor of “Goddidit”. That’s a nice “simple” hypothesis that’s guaranteed to “explain” anything that might ever be discovered.

Besides, simplicity isn’t the only criterion for preferring one theory to another. Explanatory and predictive power is also very important, as is fruitfulness. The explanatory and predictive power of the “God hypothesis” is exactly zero, because it is consistent with absolutely any conceivable observations, past, present, or future. That means not only that any other hypothesis consistent with the facts is preferable, but that it isn’t a scientific hypothesis at all.

This is something that you consistently fail to understand. God-based hypotheses are consistently rejected (in fact ignored) by scientists, not because all scientists have some mysterious, unshakable “naturalistic bias”, but because such hypotheses lead nowhere. There’s no way to test them or make predictions based on them. They explain nothing. So they’re out of court immediately.

Finally, evolution has proven to be a very fruitful hypothesis. It has suggested theories based on its central ideas in other fields. It has been used to explain a great number of phenomena that formerly appeared to be totally inexplicable (such as “altruistic” behavior in many species). The “God hypothesis”, by contrast, again leads nowhere. “God did it? Oh, OK. That’s settled then.”

Evolution is based on the confluence of an infinite number of potential events and constrained by time and space.

What the heck is that supposed to mean?

God, on the other hand is a "simple" being and is not constrained by time and space.

Oh, right. God is “simple”. An omniscient being, who knows the truth of even infinitely complicated propositions, is “simple”. A being who can effortlessly create an object so complicated that even unimaginably powerful creaturely intellects couldn’t understand it after studying it for quadrillions of years is “simple”. What sort of thing would you call “complex” if God is “simple”?

So, atheists should be careful to just whip out OR whenever they want an easy answer. They must first demonstrate that their alternative meets these tests.

Yes, OR should be used with care. In most applications its correct application is so obvious that there’s no need to cite it and argue about what it “means”. Whenever it is necessary to do so one should be on guard: sophistry may be in the offing. On the other hand, your comments demonstrate an appalling lack of understanding of both Occam’s Razor and the nature of the scientific enterprise in general.

[streamline]

Originally posted by bd-from-kg
theophilus:



What phenomenon are you referring to? Certainly the theory of evolution is capable of explaining the origin of species, but admittedly it’s incapable of explaining, say, radioactive decay.



If you knew even a little bit about science you’d know how ridiculous and ignorant this statement is. Creationism, on the other hand, really is untestable and unfalsifiable. Once you postulate an omnipotent, omniscience, unknowable being as the explanation of a phenomenon, anything goes. Absolutely nothing could falsify it.



The correct measure of the “simplicity” of a new theory is how much the existing framework has to be modified to accommodate it. Evolution postulates absolutely no new entities, no new physical laws, no mysterious coincidences. It fits very comfortably indeed into the pre-existing framework. If evolution isn’t “simpler” than God, no scientific theory is simpler than God. And if that means that the “God” hypothesis is to be preferred, we might as well abandon science altogether in favor of “Goddidit”. That’s a nice “simple” hypothesis that’s guaranteed to “explain” anything that might ever be discovered.

Besides, simplicity isn’t the only criterion for preferring one theory to another explanatory and predictive power is also very important, as is fruitfulness. The explanatory and predictive power of the “God hypothesis” is exactly zero, because it is consistent with absolutely any conceivable observations, past, present, or future. That means not only that any other hypothesis consistent with the facts is preferable, but that it isn’t a scientific hypothesis at all.

This is something that you consistently fail to understand. God-based hypotheses are consistently rejected (in fact ignored) by scientists, not because all scientists have some mysterious, unshakable “naturalistic bias”, but because such hypotheses lead nowhere. There’s no way to test them or make predictions based on them. They explain nothing. So they’re out of court immediately.

Finally, evolution has proven to be a very fruitful hypothesis. It has suggested theories based on its central ideas in other fields. It has been used to explain a great number of phenomena that formerly appeared to be totally inexplicable (such as “altruistic” behavior in many species). The “God hypothesis”, by contrast, again leads nowhere. “God did it? Oh, OK. That’s settled then.”



What the heck is that supposed to mean?



Oh, right. God is “simple”. An omniscient being, who knows the truth of even infinitely complicated propositions, is “simple”. A being who can effortlessly create an object so complicated that even unimaginably powerful creaturely intellects couldn’t understand it after studying it for quadrillions of years is “simple”. What sort of thing would you call “complex” if God is “simple”?



Yes, OR should be used with care. In most applications its correct application is so obvious that there’s no need to cite it and argue about what it “means”. Whenever it is necessary to do so one should be on guard: sophistry may be in the offing. On the other hand, your comments demonstrate an appalling lack of understanding of both Occam’s Razor and the nature of the scientific enterprise in general.

:notworthy
Biff! Blammy! Pow! Kaboom! And theophilus gets KO'd (again). Great post bd-from-kg. Your thoughts on what makes a good scientific theory, and the warning signs that there is an unscientific theory in one's midsts, sounds just like Schick and Vaughn's How to Think about Weird Things, which incidentally, I have been re-reading (again) lately, something I try to do regularly so I can keep the grey matter from atrophying.

[EGGO]

Theophilus, how many more blanks are you gonna shoot towards us?

You're already holding an empty clip.

[Doctor X]

Perhaps the physical attempt to try to shoot provides him some pleasure?

--J.D.

[theophilus]

Originally posted by Just_An_Atheist
"First, William of Occan was a Chrsitian, so he could not have intended any dictum as a tool to deny God."

So what? We're interested in how it could be used, period.

"Second, there is apparently no evidence that Occam ever knew about his famous namesake."

Again, so?

"The mere assertion of an idea does not automatically mean that that idea is adequate to explain a phenomenon."

The law is relevant only when all things are equal. If we have equal, or no evidence for two hypotheses then the simpler one tends to be correct.

"Third, it is not at all clear that evolution is a "simpler" explanation than God. Evolution is based on the confluance of an infinite number of potential events and constrained by time and space."

And God could have done it an infinite number of ways, so once again we are either stuck with just the universe or both God and the uviverse. Once again, naturalism wins.

"God, on the other hand is a "simple" being and is not constrained by time and space."

True, but your stuck with (so far) two things. Once again, I ask you: which is simpler, just a universe, or a universe plus God?

Your question is mistaken.
Saying "just" the universe as if you know that the universe is "simple" is just begging the question.

Most important, it's not "God" and anything. God is a self-existent unity. Everything else proceeds from him.

[theophilus]

Originally posted by Jobar
I'm going to take 3 official actions here.

1. Theophilus, you have hijacked this thread and dragged it off in a direction I'm sure CV did not mean it to go. It's a discussion about OR *and* multiple universes, and you just want to diss OR. Consider yourself whacked about the head and shoulders with a long-dead trout, theophilus.

I'm confused (yes, yes, enjoy your little laugh); I could have sworn that I posted this as a separate topic. I was surprised when I saw the title you used. I went over to CV's post and do not recall having ever seen it.

2. I'm going to split this thread, and re-title all but the OP 'theophilus vs. Occam's Razor'. And I'm going to note that theo goes into this battle without even a rusty nail file, so my money's on William.

I wasn't trying to defeat William, so don't see the point of your money being anywhere but in you pocket.

3. Comestible Venom, I've read that article, and a fascinating one it is, too. 4 possible levels of multiple universes- hell, my mind wasn't far enough out to conceive that even doing 'shrooms and acid simultaneously, back in the seventies. (Guess I should have added more drugs to the mix, hm?) ;) But, it's not really a topic for EoG, so I'm moving it to S&S. Jobar.

The reason I posted here EoG is because OC is always drug in as if the mere assertion excludes God.

[theophilus]

Originally posted by Just_An_Atheist
"Evolution is based on..."

When did he mention evolution!

If you mean Occam, I don't think I implied that. I was discussing the application of OR which is usually asserted as ipso facto disproof of Go as creator because that is somehow more "complicated" than evolution.

[copernicus]

Originally posted by theophilus
Most important, it's not "God" and anything. God is a self-existent unity. Everything else proceeds from him.
Which God, Theophilus? There are an endless number of them, and Occam wants to get busy. ;)

[theophilus]

Originally posted by Philosoft
Irrelevant. The worth of a philosophical tool is embedded in its usefulness, not the putative intentions of its creator.


I mentioned this to remove the unspoken implication that OR is automatically antitheistic.

Falsifying evolution: show that organisms don't change over time; show that all offspring are perfect genetic mosaics of their parents. Falsifying neo-Darwinism: find a Homo erectus fossil in Cambrian strata.


Where did this come from?

You're conflating evolution and something else here. Evolution only precludes Creationism, not God.


Well, since the only God I'm concerned with is the creator God, I'm not conflating anything.

Man, you ought to be arrested for torturing logic and semantics. What does Occam have to do with time and space constraints?

We could share a cell when you're hauled in for missing the point.

[theophilus]

Originally posted by Goober
Yeah, and the guy who discovered fission didn't intend for it to be used as a weapon, so that must mean all atom bombs are a fiction.

Or how about: The PoE was invented by Christian theologians, so they could not have intended it to be a tool to deny god. Therefore, any use of it to deny god is wrong, irrelevant of what to PoE atually says.

Why did you even bother to write this sentence? Can't you see how irrelevent it is?

This was just an observation. I apologize in not being clear.

I included it to challenge the unspoken assumption present in most citings of OR that it is automatically anti-theistic.

[theophilus]

Originally posted by bd-from-kg
What phenomenon are you referring to? Certainly the theory of evolution is capable of explaining the origin of species, but admittedly it’s incapable of explaining, say, radioactive decay.

I probably should have used the term Naturalism, of which evolution is a part. However, withing the context of extant life, evolution is not KNOWN to be an adequate explanation since it has never been observed (macro).

Neverthelsess, evolution is clearly a complex process (of course, it is not a process at all since that would imply direction), requiring the simultaneous, precise occurrance of a hugh number of biological/chemical/cosmological elements.

If you knew even a little bit about science you’d know how ridiculous and ignorant this statement is.

I know. That's why every time I've asked for one piece of evidence of evolution (macro), which I've done hundreds of times, I've received exactly ZERO replies. I'm sure, however, since you know lots about science, you'll be more forthcoming. I await your answer - just one piece of incontrovertible evidence, please.

Creationism, on the other hand, really is untestable and unfalsifiable. Once you postulate an omnipotent, omniscience, unknowable being as the explanation of a phenomenon, anything goes. Absolutely nothing could falsify it.

Well, all the creationists I know are perfectly willing to have their thesis tested by exactly the same tests applied to evolution - oh, I forgot, no tests have been applied to evolution, except theorhetical. I guess it's a different standard for creation.

The correct measure of the “simplicity” of a new theory is how much the existing framework has to be modified to accommodate it.

Well, since the "existing framework" was historically creation, then you're talking about evolution, right?

Evolution postulates absolutely no new entities, no new physical laws, no mysterious coincidences.

I'm sorry, I must have missed "natural selection/survival of the fittest" in my classes on medaeval science.

It fits very comfortably indeed into the pre-existing framework. If evolution isn’t “simpler” than God, no scientific theory is simpler than God.

You must be kidding. Which is simpler "In the beginning, God created," or "billions and billions of years ago, life began by an unknown, accidental event and the complex organisms which now exist are the result of a random process which has never been observed and for which there is absolutely no empirical evidence (don't forget my request for evidence - just one piece will do).

And if that means that the “God” hypothesis is to be preferred, we might as well abandon science altogether in favor of “Goddidit”. That’s a nice “simple” hypothesis that’s guaranteed to “explain” anything that might ever be discovered.

Well, hell, it that's your preference, why not just say, "that's just the way it is" - that's surely the most simple explanation of all.

Besides, simplicity isn’t the only criterion for preferring one theory to another. Explanatory and predictive power is also very important, as is fruitfulness. The explanatory and predictive power of the “God hypothesis” is exactly zero, because it is consistent with absolutely any conceivable observations, past, present, or future. That means not only that any other hypothesis consistent with the facts is preferable, but that it isn’t a scientific hypothesis at all.

Aside from the fact that evolution has never had a successful prediction (remember all those transitionary forms that don't exist), we're ONLY talking about OR here.

This is something that you consistently fail to understand. God-based hypotheses are consistently rejected (in fact ignored) by scientists, not because all scientists have some mysterious, unshakable “naturalistic bias”, but because such hypotheses lead nowhere.

and what you consistently ignore is that scientists do, in fact, have an unshakeable "naturalistic bias." Of course the "God hypothesis" will not yield meaningful answers when the range of acceptable answers is limited to the purely natural at the beginning of the investigation.

There’s no way to test them or make predictions based on them.

This is simply false. Newton, Keppler al based their theories on the assumption that nature displayed uniformity and, therefore predictibility, just because it was governed by God.

Naturalistic predictibility is based on nothing.

[Jobar]

theophilus:
That's why every time I've asked for one piece of evidence of evolution (macro), which I've done hundreds of times, I've received exactly ZERO replies.

theophilus, you push me to the bare edge of rudeness with that. Take ye that statement to E/C, and after you have been covered with evidence so deep that you can't see daylight, come back here and apologize. That's not true and you know it.

In fact, I am going to start the thread for you. Unsupported assertions and repetitious arguments are one thing; bald lies are quite another.

[Spurious Quirk]

Originally posted by theophilus
I know. That's why every time I've asked for one piece of evidence of evolution (macro), which I've done hundreds of times, I've received exactly ZERO replies. I'm sure, however, since you know lots about science, you'll be more forthcoming. I await your answer - just one piece of incontrovertible evidence, please.


I apologise if you have seen this before, but how about this (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html) as evidence for so-called 'macro' evolution?

Cheers

[Spurious Quirk]

Originally posted by theophilus
Naturalistic predictibility is based on nothing.


Not so. Naturalistic predictability is based on the observation that thus far the universe has displayed uniformity and predictability (as far as we can tell). To some extent the modern principle of uniformity probably is a carry-over from an earlier age when predictability was assumed because of the supposed nature of god; yet it does have evidenciary support on its own -- that is to say it works, and always has worked.

Cheers

[Goober]

ROFL!!! Theophilus, Mr "I've never been to the EC forum in my life" sits here an asserts that no one has provided any evidence for evolution.

Why don't you go over to EC and ask, or even do a little reading on your own? Here is an excellent place to start: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

You must be kidding. Which is simpler "In the beginning, God created," or "billions and billions of years ago, life began by an unknown, accidental event and the complex organisms which now exist are the result of a random process which has never been observed and for which there is absolutely no empirical evidence (don't forget my request for evidence - just one piece will do).

Laughable. The current hypothesis is that 'life' began as simple RNA molecules. We know they exist. We know they can form abiotically in the right conditions. We know that early earth had these right conditions. We know microevolution takes place, it has been observed. And of course we have loads of evidence for macroevolution. These are not "random proccesses", there is plenty of evidence. No offence, but you need to do a little reading on abiogenesis and evolution, because your ignorance of these topics shows.

[beausoleil]

Originally posted by Spurious Quirk
Not so. Naturalistic predictability is based on the observation that thus far the universe has displayed uniformity and predictability (as far as we can tell). To some extent the modern principle of uniformity probably is a carry-over from an earlier age when predictability was assumed because of the supposed nature of god; yet it does have evidenciary support on its own -- that is to say it works, and always has worked.

Cheers

Why do we think patterns from the past will continue in the future?

Because they always have so far!

Naturalisitic predictability appears to be based on itself. :)

[Goober]

Hey Theophilus,

Make sure you go visit the thread Jobar started for you in EC.

Heres a link (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=62713)

[Calzaer]

Which God, Theophilus? There are an endless number of them, and Occam wants to get busy

Why, the only TRUE god, of course! Polytheism is so dumb! One god verses many gods? Occam's razor takes ca... uht-oh.

[bd-from-kg]

[/b]theophilus:[/b]

I probably should have used the term Naturalism, of which evolution is a part.

Evolution is a scientific theory; naturalism is a metaphysical theory. Do you have any idea what you’re talking about?

However, within the context of extant life, evolution is not KNOWN to be an adequate explanation since it has never been observed (macro).

This is yet another demonstration of your ignorance about scientific methodology. In the first place it has been observed. (If you’re too lazy to look for articles at talk.origins or even to look at the thread Jobar set up for you in the E/C forum, here are a couple of links: Observed Instances of Speciation (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html) and Some More Observed Speciation Events (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html).) But even if not a single actual instance of speciation had been observed directly, it wouldn’t mean that we don’t know that it has occurred. To illustrate, suppose that a murder has been committed, and it is found that: (1) the suspect’s fingerprints are all over the murder scene; (2) forensic analysis yields a perfect match between the rifle marks on the bullet that killed the victim and the suspect’s gun; (3) blood that matches the victim’s perfectly through DNA analysis is found on the suspect’s clothes. At that point we know that the suspect was at any rate at the scene of the murder at some time, that the victim was killed with the suspect’s gun, and that the suspect got the victim’s blood on his clothes,. Do we know with absolute certainty? No, nothing is absolutely certain in this world. But we know with a very high degree of confidence. How do we know these things? Because past events leave traces in the present. These traces are how we know 99.99% of what we do about the past.

In the case of evolution the most obvious traces, of course, are fossils. But the most conclusive traces can be found in DNA. The evidence of evolution provided by DNA analysis is far more conclusive than the evidence I cited above; in fact, it leaves no room for doubt in the mind of any sane person familiar with it. Of course it’s possible that God arranged the DNA evidence to fool us into thinking that evolution occurred, just as God could have arranged the fingerprint, forensic, and DNA evidence at the murder scene in such a way as to fool the investigators. Indeed, all of the traces by which we deduce what’s happened in the past could have been arranged by God to fool us. But this kind of hypothesis is not taken seriously by sane people, for what I hope are obvious reasons.

The DNA evidence is discussed in Part 4 of the 29 Evidences for Macroevolution mega-article (http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#pseudogenes) cited earlier, and in considerable detail Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/).

Nevertheless, evolution is clearly a complex process (of course, it is not a process at all since that would imply direction), requiring the simultaneous, precise occurrence of a huge number of biological/chemical/cosmological elements.

Sure, it’s a complex process, just as the weather, or the formation of a galaxy, is a complex process. But it doesn’t require the “simultaneous, precise occurrence of a huge number of biological/chemical/cosmological elements”. This is confusing the process itself with a high-level theory of the process. In same way, if you ask how a certain casino made money on a given day, one type of answer would be a complete accounting of the myriad of transactions that took place in the casino that day. But a far simpler high-level explanation would be in terms of probability theory. The latter would fail to explain why each individual bet came out the way it did, but it would be far more informative as an explanation of how the casino came to make money.

And by the way, where did you get the weird idea that something has to have direction in order to qualify as a process?

... every time I've asked for one piece of evidence of evolution (macro), which I've done hundreds of times, I've received exactly ZERO replies.

Jobar has saved me the trouble of looking up the appropriate articles and providing links to them. (Thanks, Jobar.)Anyway, anyone who’s at all serious about looking into this question is thoroughly familiar with the talk.origins site (http://www.talkorigins.org). If you really want to talk intelligently about evolution, you really have to go there and read at least the main pages. Otherwise you’re just going to continue to look silly.

Well, all the creationists I know are perfectly willing to have their thesis tested by exactly the same tests applied to evolution

No, they’re not. The honest creationists who were willing to have their theses tested by the same criteria as any scientific theory conceded defeat sometime around 1880. Today there’s no one pretending to defend “scientific creationism” seriously but a few charlatans and quacks.

Real scientists offer fairly detailed theories, make actual predictions (as detailed as possible) and are willing to let their theories stand or fall based on the results. “Creation scientists” do none of these things. Whenever one of their ridiculous attempts to explain away the overwhelming evidence for an ancient earth and common descent is blown away by still more evidence, they just concoct an even more ridiculous explanation in its place. What they are absolutely unwilling to do is to abandon the “creation” hypothesis itself. None of their “theories” has anything like the level of detail and specificity to be taken seriously as a scientific theory nowadays. If you were familiar with the scientific literature in any field (I exclude pseudo-sciences like sociology) the hand-waving nature of what creationists call “theories” would be immediately obvious to you.

Here are a couple of interesting article about “creation science”: Scientific Creationism and Error (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cre-error.html) and Creationism: Bad Science or Immoral Pseudoscience? (http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/gish.html) (mainly about Duane Gish). You can find links to lots more here (http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/gish.html).

bd:
The correct measure of the “simplicity” of a new theory is how much the existing framework has to be modified to accommodate it.

theo:
Well, since the "existing framework" was historically creation, then you're talking about evolution, right?

Not really. Most scientists were creationists, at least up to around 1800, but this was never proposed as a scientific theory; rather, it was believed because the Bible said so. By 1800 the geological evidence was overwhelming that the earth was very old – much older than the Bible implied – and the fossil evidence made it very clear that there had been a long succession of species over much of that time. By 1850 a large number of scientists had concluded that, at least in a great many cases, these species had descended from earlier ones, but there wasn’t a good theory as to how this could have happened. So by the time Origin of Species appeared, creation (at least as described in Genesis) was no longer part of the “existing framework” in any sense.

But that’s not what I was really talking about. A good analogy would be the germ theory of disease vs. special relativity. The germ theory fit comfortably into what was already known: it was already known that there were very small organisms both inside and outside the human body; that many of them were animals, which meant that they lived by ingesting organic matter. It was a simple step to suppose that some of them could live parasitically on the human body and thereby cause problems for it. By contrast, special relativity required a radical new way of thinking about matter and energy, space and time. Evolution is much closer to the germ theory than to relativity in terms of how much modification of the existing framework was needed to accommodate it. The fact that some people had the absurd idea that diseases were caused by demons or by God (as a punishment) is irrelevant; this was never a scientific hypothesis.

bd:
Evolution postulates absolutely no new entities, no new physical laws, no mysterious coincidences.

theo:
I'm sorry, I must have missed "natural selection/survival of the fittest" in my classes on mediaeval science.

“Natural selection” is just a name for how known natural processes must work in the context of living things; it does not involve any new entities, physical laws, or mysterious coincidences. Anyone who understands it cannot doubt that it occurs. “Survival of the fittest” is a confused and misleading term for it; Darwin never used the phrase.

Which is simpler "In the beginning, God created," or "billions and billions of years ago, life began by an unknown, accidental event and the complex organisms which now exist are the result of a random process ...

First off, we’re not talking about how life began. That’s a separate subject called abiogenesis. At this time there is nothing like an accepted or satisfactory theory of abiogenesis, and no reputable scientist pretends that there is.

Second, when people call evolution a “random process”, they generally mean to imply that things like the eye were produced by “pure luck”, which is absurd. To be sure, some aspects of evolution are random; for example, the specific species that it produces are essentially random. But many aspects of it, such the tendency to create a greater variety of species as time goes on, or the tendency of organisms to be well adapted to their environment, are not random.

Finally, which is simpler: “All of the millions of snowflakes that fell last night were created by essentially the same natural process”, or “Each snowflake was handcrafted specially by God” ? Which is simpler, “Each of the eight million or so species was created specially by God” or “Each species was created by the same natural process” ?

bd:
And if that means that the “God” hypothesis is to be preferred, we might as well abandon science altogether in favor of “Goddidit”. That’s a nice “simple” hypothesis that’s guaranteed to “explain” anything that might ever be discovered.

theo:
Well, hell, it that's your preference, why not just say, "that's just the way it is" - that's surely the most simple explanation of all.

Um , how exactly is this responsive?

Aside from the fact that evolution has never had a successful prediction (remember all those transitionary forms that don't exist), we're ONLY talking about OR here.

We’re talking about how OR is to be applied in actual cases. If we interpret the term “simplest hypothesis” as simplistically as you want to, OR collapses into total nonsense. The motions of the planets are surely explained more “simply” by saying that God pushes them. By comparison GR is ridiculously complex; obviously it should be discarded as an explanation.

As for those “nonexistent” transitional forms, here’s
the part of the 29 evidences article that deals with transitions (http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates). And here’s another article on the subject: the Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html) (You really need to explore the talk.origins site. You’re embarrassing yourself.)

...and what you consistently ignore is that scientists do, in fact, have an unshakable "naturalistic bias."

That’s a pretty amazing statement considering that practically all scientists for a very long time were theists. Even today a very large number of scientists are theists. Do all of those theistic scientists have an unshakable naturalistic bias? Are they all lying?

If you want to be taken seriously, show us how this supposed “naturalistic bias” manifests itself (other than in a nearly universal belief in evolution, which is after all the very thing that you’re invoking it to explain). In what other ways has science gone wrong by failing to consider supernatural theories?

Of course the "God hypothesis" will not yield meaningful answers when the range of acceptable answers is limited to the purely natural at the beginning of the investigation.

What exactly do you consider a “meaningful answer”? How have you “explained” something if your purported “explanation” is consistent with the exact opposite state of affairs? And how does a God-based hypothesis help us to make predictions? We have no idea what God might do next. Anything that happens can be “explained” in terms of the “God hypothesis”. A theory that is consistent with any possible evidence is no theory at all; it’s just a lot of meaningless noise.

There’s no way to test them or make predictions based on them.

This is simply false. Newton, Kepler all based their theories on the assumption that nature displayed uniformity and, therefore predictability, just because it was governed by God.

Their theories, like all scientific theories, were based on the assumption that nature is orderly. The further premise that this order was produced by God is superfluous. Anyway, there’s no way to test the hypothesis that nature is orderly, and it yields no specific predictions – which is to say that it’s not a scientific hypothesis” – certainly not in the sense that I was obviously referring to. This assumption that nature is orderly is a premise that underlies the whole scientific enterprise. And it’s undermined by claims that God intervenes in this universe, and especially by claims that He intervenes by creating traces of apparent past events that never occurred – i.e., by deliberately deceiving us.

Theophilus, the theory of evolution is at least as well-established as almost any scientific theory you can name. The claim that Julius Caesar wasn’t really assassinated would be more plausible. You’d do well to abandon this absurd crusade for a position that was decisively defeated over a century ago. What next? Are you going to put on a Confederate uniform and go out looking for Lee’s army?

[theophilus]

Originally posted by Goober
[BAnd of course we have loads of evidence for macroevolution.

Yeah, right. That's why everytime I've asked for this evidence (just one uncontrovertable piece will do), all I get is silence. I'm willing to predict (on the basis of past behavior) that you'll be no different - yes, I'm asking you to provide any piece of this "load." Otherwise, I'll conclude that it's a "load" of a different type.

[theophilus]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bd-from-kg

[b]This is yet another demonstration of your ignorance about scientific methodology. In the first place it has been observed. (If you’re too lazy to look for articles at talk.origins or even to look at the thread Jobar set up for you in the E/C forum, here are a couple of links: Observed Instances of Speciation (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html) and Some More Observed Speciation Events (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html).)

This is not only dishonest (this is not evodence for macro-evolution except by a wholly unwarranted extrapolation), but a confirmation that evolution is held as an article of faith, not as a compelling scientific theory.

You want iron-clad proof of any argument for creation but you're willing to accept minor, artificially induced changes in plants and germs as proof that man evolved from swamp slime.

To claim that evolution is a scientific theory "like" all other scientific theories is simply false. Other scientific theories, gravity, are intended to explain observable phenomenon, an apple falling; evolution explains nothing, because there is no observable phenomeon.

Get real!!

[theophilus]

Originally posted by bd-from-kg

No, they’re not. The honest creationists who were willing to have their theses tested by the same criteria as any scientific theory conceded defeat sometime around 1880. Today there’s no one pretending to defend “scientific creationism” seriously but a few charlatans and quacks.

Some evidence (you know) for your first assertion would be nice.

The second statement is simply a gratuitous means dismissing anyone who supports creation as a quack. This is a dishonest claim. Most creationists have credentials at least as good as any evolutionist. Their only "disqualification" is that they reject the evolutionary dogma that hijacked science, which could not have happened without government support.

Real scientists offer fairly detailed theories, make actual predictions (as detailed as possible) and are willing to let their theories stand or fall based on the results.

Fine, as a "real scientist, I'm sure you'll be able to cite a couple of examples where evolution has successfully predicted anything. Or does that only apply to creation?

Here are a couple of interesting article about “creation science”: Scientific Creationism and Error (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cre-error.html) and Creationism: Bad Science or Immoral Pseudoscience? (http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/gish.html) (mainly about Duane Gish). You can find links to lots more here (http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/gish.html).

Right, and I'm sure they're completely objective.

and the fossil evidence made it very clear that there had been a long succession of species over much of that time. By 1850 a large number of scientists had concluded that, at least in a great many cases, these species had descended from earlier ones, but there wasn’t a good theory as to how this could have happened. So by the time Origin of Species appeared, creation (at least as described in Genesis) was no longer part of the “existing framework” in any sense.


and Darwin admitted that for his theory to be valid, there would have to be innumerable intermediate forms. These of course were discovered in ..... oh wait, they've never been discovered, have they. Never mind, Puncuated Equalibria will save the day. Funny thing, there is not discernable difference between the effect of PE and Special Creation.

But many aspects of it, such the tendency to create a greater variety of species as time goes on, or the tendency of organisms to be well adapted to their environment, are not random.

First, claiming these as "aspects of it," is merely gratuitous. Second, it is tautological.

Finally, which is simpler: “All of the millions of snowflakes that fell last night were created by essentially the same natural process”, or “Each snowflake was handcrafted specially by God” ? Which is simpler, “Each of the eight million or so species was created specially by God” or “Each species was created by the same natural process” ?

Well, if you really knew anything about creation theory, you'd know that it does not propose millions of distinct species, so I guess you're just displaying YOUR ignorance, arent' you.

Second, you are anthropromorphising creation. It is no harder for an infinite, omnipotent God to command the creation of one entity or billions.
However, all naturalistic theories demand a complex interaction of forces.

Their theories, like all scientific theories, were based on the assumption that nature is orderly. The further premise that this order was produced by God is superfluous.

How nice to be able to dismiss the foundation of their belief as merely superfluous? Let's just do that for any idea that gets in our way.

[Wayne Delia]

Originally posted by theophilus
If you mean Occam, I don't think I implied that. I was discussing the application of OR which is usually asserted as ipso facto disproof of Go as creator because that is somehow more "complicated" than evolution. Ockham's Razor is not "ipso facto disproof" of anything, much less God. It is a general guideline that the simplest explanation of a particular phenomenon (i.e. the scientific theory of evolution explaining how things evolve) is preferable, and probably more correct, than unnecessarily multiplied entities (i.e. the theory of evolution fairies somehow magicking all the observed mechanisms of evolution).

Either you misunderstand Ockham's Razor, or you deliberately made a strawman argument out of it.

WMD ("Occam's Laser")

[theophilus]

Originally posted by bd-from-kg
As for those “nonexistent” transitional forms, here’s the Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html) (You really need to explore the talk.origins site. You’re embarrassing yourself.)


Do you even read this stuff before citing it?

Here are some examples of the authoritative, definitive proofs from your cite:

GAP: Note that these first, very very old traces of shark-like animals are so fragmentary that we can't get much detailed information. So, we don't know which jawless fish was the actual ancestor of early sharks.

Probably not directly ancestral to sharks, but gives a remarkable picture of general early shark anatomy, down to the muscle fibers!

These ancient bony fish probably gave rise both to modern ray-finned fish (mentioned above), and also to the lobe-finned fish.

The very first amphibians seem to have developed legs and feet to scud around on the bottom in the water, as some modern fish do, not to walk on land (see Edwards, 1989)

Fragmented limbs and teeth from the middle Late Devonian (about 370 Ma), possibly belonging to Obruchevichthys

At first sight the combination of two such extremities in the same animal seems highly unlikely on functional grounds. If, however, tetrapod limbs evolved for aquatic rather than terrestrial locomotion, as recently suggested, such a morphology might be perfectly workable."

"The morphology of the limbs of Acanthostega and Ichthyostega suggest an aquatic mode of life, compatible with a recent assessment of the fish-tetrapod transition. The dorsoventrally compressed lower leg bones of Ichthyostega strongly resemble those of a cetacean [whale] pectoral flipper

Hynerpeton, in contrast, probably did not have internal gills and already had a well-developed shoulder girdle

Hynerpeton's discoverers think that since it had the strongest limbs earliest on, it may be the actual ancestor of all subsequent terrestrial tetrapods, while Acanthostega and Ichthyostega may have been a side branch that stayed happily in a mostly-aquatic niche.

In summary, the very first amphibians (presently known only from fragments) were probably almost totally aquatic[/b]

In summary, we really don't have any idea what we're talking about, but we have to prove those creationists wrong, so we'll cloak our "proof" with a lot of speculative terms (after all, it could have happened).

This involved attaching the pelvis more firmly to the spine, and separating the shoulder from the skull.

This is wonderful. It ONLY involved "attaching the pelvis, etc." Happens all the time.

Well, with evidence like this, I am embarrased; for you.

[Wayne Delia]

Originally posted by theophilus
This was just an observation. I apologize in not being clear.

I included it to challenge the unspoken assumption present in most citings of OR that it is automatically anti-theistic. Challenging unspoken assumptions is functionally equivalent to arguing against assertions nobody has actually made. That's basically the textbook definition of "strawman argument." William of Ockham's so-called "razor" is a recommendation, based on sheer common sense, to avoid degrading the effectiveness and reliability of a sufficient explanation of a fact by unnecessarily multiplying (requiring further, superfluous, beyond-sufficient additional explanations). For example, suppose Fact A is explained by Theory B to about 75% confidence, there would be no need to additionally require Theory C which has many more unproven aspects than Theory B, resulting in a confidence of, say, 33 1/3% for Theory C. Requiring both Theory B and Theory C would result in a combined confidence of (75%) times (33 1/3%), or 25%, when Theory B is sufficient enough at 75%.

The problem with the additional requirement of the God theory is the confidence probability. You, undoubtably, would have 100% confidence that "Goddiddit" is 100% sufficient to serve as the answer to any question, despite no evidence to support any confidence, much less 100% confidence. That's why atheists, skeptics, and non-Christian theists assign 0% (or very little, if any) confidence to the additional assumption of a Christian God. Ockham's Razor is correctly applied against the lack of evidence supporting the assumption, not necessarily against de facto theism in general. So, your claim that O.R. is "anti-theistic" is just plain silly. More to the point, O.R. is anti-stupidity.

WMD (Occam's Laser)

[Daggah]

[deleted insult] Every time you've shown yourself in the evolution forum here, your arguments were ripped to shreads and you ran from the discussion. As for your examples...it's just another evasion tactic. How about instead of focusing on the language they used, you actually read up on the evidence and respond to it?

[Mullibok]

Originally posted by theophilus
The very first amphibians seem to have developed legs and feet to scud around on the bottom in the water, as some modern fish do, not to walk on land (see Edwards, 1989)

This has to be the disingenuous quotation you used. They're treating the legs and feet development as a fact and speculating about why they were there, not about whether or not they were there at all. Or do you think that speculation about why a development was useful refutes evolution? Read things in context fer chrisake.

[Calzaer]

Who does Theo think he's fooling? We're certainly not buying his bullshit, especially since we can just click over a forum and see how [deleted insult] he is.

[theophilus]

Originally posted by Daggah
[deleted insult] Every time you've shown yourself in the evolution forum here, your arguments were ripped to shreads and you ran from the discussion. As for your examples...it's just another evasion tactic. How about instead of focusing on the language they used, you actually read up on the evidence and respond to it?

Since, as a Christian, I am very concerned with an accusation of dishonesty, you must state precisely the reason for this declaration. If it is so, I will apologize, as I have done elsewhere. Otherwise, I must assume that this is merely another example of argument by outburst.

If the substantiation of you charge is what follows, i.e., "every time you show yourself, etc.," well then, this is clearly false.

I have asked repeatedly for even one uncontrovertible piece of evidence that macro-evolution has ever occurred. What I have received, repeatedly, is abuse, charges of ignorance or, at best, refernce to sites which talk about micro-evolution.

I did not start this thread to debate evolution and it only came up when I demonstrated that naturalistic explanations are not automatically more simple. This is a mere assertion, evidenced by the repeated statements like, "adding God complicates things."
This is a complete misrepresentation of the issue and displays an inability (unwillingness) to come to grips with what I'm saying.

Saying things like "adding God," betrays a naturalistic assumption. It assumes that because evolution (the scientific expression of metaphysical naturalism) can be theorized as an explanation for the complex and vaired life forms, that it IS the explanation.

Of course, this begs the question that is in dispute, i.e., whether or not everything has a natural explanaiton.

God is not added to or extrapolated from a naturalistic framework ("adding God"). He is presented as the only adequate explanation for life and it's varied components.

Which, of course, brings be back to my continuing challenge for natural/materialists to demonstrate how a worldview constructed on their presupposition can give a meaningful explanation of the existence of logic, laws, and moralities as immaterial concepts.

If you have other evidence of my untruthfullness, you may send it to me in a PM.

[Thomas Ash]

Hi theophilius,

You may see all those probablies and the evidence is tentatives you highlighted as a sign of weakness in naturalistic science. But I'd say it shows something admirable - the basing of beliefs on evidence; evidence coming before theories rather than vice versa; proportioning of beliefs to the strength of the evidence. Couldn't theism learn from all these things?

Best wishes,

Thomas Ash

[Daggah]

Originally posted by theophilus
Since, as a Christian, I am very concerned with an accusation of dishonesty, you must state precisely the reason for this declaration. If it is so, I will apologize, as I have done elsewhere. Otherwise, I must assume that this is merely another example of argument by outburst.

You said that every time you asked for evidence of evolution in our evolution forum, you received "exactly ZERO replies." (Your words.) This is SIMPLY NOT TRUE. I went back and looked, theophilus - every single discussion you EVER started in our evolution forum was quickly abandoned by you!

I have asked repeatedly for even one uncontrovertible piece of evidence that macro-evolution has ever occurred. What I have received, repeatedly, is abuse, charges of ignorance or, at best, refernce to sites which talk about micro-evolution.

Oh, so suddenly you're changing your tune? This is bullshit. I've read those discussions. That YOU find the evidence unconvincing is hardly surprising. Honesty when analyzing the evidence is rare in creationists these days. Your arguments against those evidences were absurd and unconvincing. And charges of ignorance would be quite right!

By the way, you continue to be dishonest here. There's a thread just WAITING for you in the Evolution forum here, and it's been linked to in this thread. Yet you haven't shown yourself there.

Gee, I wonder why?

[Alludium Fozdex]

theophilus, I'd really like to see you take a crack at this:
[S]how us how this supposed “naturalistic bias” manifests itself (other than in a nearly universal belief in evolution, which is after all the very thing that you’re invoking it to explain). In what other ways has science gone wrong by failing to consider supernatural theories?

[mosaic]

This is really funny. That scientists dont cloak their explantions in absolutist terms is a knock against them. I suggest someone just go through those documents and add the words "God said so," to each of phrases to make them have the validity that theo wants.

[theophilus]

Originally posted by Daggah
You said that every time you asked for evidence of evolution in our evolution forum, you received "exactly ZERO replies." (Your words.) This is SIMPLY NOT TRUE. I went back and looked, theophilus - every single discussion you EVER started in our evolution forum was quickly abandoned by you!



Oh, so suddenly you're changing your tune? This is bullshit. I've read those discussions. That YOU find the evidence unconvincing is hardly surprising. Honesty when analyzing the evidence is rare in creationists these days. Your arguments against those evidences were absurd and unconvincing. And charges of ignorance would be quite right!

By the way, you continue to be dishonest here. There's a thread just WAITING for you in the Evolution forum here, and it's been linked to in this thread. Yet you haven't shown yourself there.

Gee, I wonder why?

Well, perhaps you're confusing me with another Theophilus. As far as I know, I've posted in the Evolution thread exactly once and that was to ask a question, not to argue.

Interesting that your "evidence" consists of the continued assertion that evidence has been presented.

I ask again, as I always have for "just one piece of incontrovertable evidence" that macro-evolution has ever taken place. Since neither you nor any of the others who assert evolution has done that, I can only conclude that it doesn't exist.

Now, it would certainly be easy to correct this impression by posting that evidence here. However, if the "future is always like the past," I'm doubtful that will happen.

As to why I haven't "taken-up" the various invitations to argue on the evolution thread, as I've explained numerous times, I'm only indierctly interested in evolution as an illustration of the naturalistic bias which underlies all secular science, i.e., the assumption that there IS and can ONLY BE a naturalisitc explanation for all phenomenon. Notice, this is not proven, just assumed.

Thus, supernatural (non-natural) explanations cannot be "proven" because the very possibility is excluded from the very beginning. Hardly a sign that secular science is open to all possibilities.

So, no I won't be arguing evolution on another thread.

[theophilus]

Originally posted by Thomas Ash
Hi theophilius,

You may see all those probablies and the evidence is tentatives you highlighted as a sign of weakness in naturalistic science. But I'd say it shows something admirable - the basing of beliefs on evidence; evidence coming before theories rather than vice versa; proportioning of beliefs to the strength of the evidence. Couldn't theism learn from all these things?

Best wishes,

Thomas Ash

Thomas;

I'd be glad to know, from the history of evolutioary theory, where evidence ever preceded theory.
Darwin did not "discover" evolution. It was a theory that had been around since ancient Greece (at least).
Darwin gave a "credible" excuse for people to believe the theory by giving an explanation for how evolution worked, i.e., natural selection.
However, this explanation, his various observations, i.e. Finch beaks, demonstrated nothing regarding macro-evolution. This was accomplished by an unsubstantiated extrapolation from micro to macro evolution.

All of the "evidence" that has been produced to support evolution is interpreted within an evolutionary assumption, e.g., when a new fossil is discovered, evaluation BEGINS from the assumption that it fits somewhere in the evolutionary scheme.

So, no I don't think this is a laudable characteristic of science.

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by theophilus
I'm only indierctly interested in evolution as an illustration of the naturalistic bias which underlies all secular science, i.e., the assumption that there IS and can ONLY BE a naturalisitc explanation for all phenomenon. Notice, this is not proven, just assumed. Thus, supernatural (non-natural) explanations cannot be "proven" because the very possibility is excluded from the very beginning. Hardly a sign that secular science is open to all possibilities.


There is no such thing as "non-secular science" so the term "secular science" is needlessly wordy. Science is the study and explanation of natural phenomena through exclusively natural means; it does not rule-out the supernatural but instead is limited in scope to that which is theoretically possible to observe, measure, test, and explain through nature. It is open to all natural possibilites, but cannot explore or define the supernatural. Supernatural entities aren't deemed either possible or impossible by science; they are simply not within the realm of science. If you wish to explore and define a non-natural entity, you cannot do so scientifically and must some other method of inquiry.

[Mullibok]

Originally posted by theophilus
All of the "evidence" that has been produced to support evolution is interpreted within an evolutionary assumption, e.g., when a new fossil is discovered, evaluation BEGINS from the assumption that it fits somewhere in the evolutionary scheme.


Yet it is extremely simple to imagine a case of a fossil discovery not fitting within this scheme. Strangely enough, none of these easy to imagine cases has ever been actualized. If I see a leaf on the ground, I fit it into my "leaves fall off trees" scheme because experience says this is the most reasonable place to put it, and until I see a leaf grow up from the ground I'm going to keep putting those fallen leaves in the tree scheme.

[Mullibok]

Originally posted by theophilus
I ask again, as I always have for "just one piece of incontrovertable evidence" that macro-evolution has ever taken place. Since neither you nor any of the others who assert evolution has done that, I can only conclude that it doesn't exist.

As to why I haven't "taken-up" the various invitations to argue on the evolution thread, as I've explained numerous times, I'm only indierctly interested in evolution as an illustration of the naturalistic bias which underlies all secular science, i.e., the assumption that there IS and can ONLY BE a naturalisitc explanation for all phenomenon. Notice, this is not proven, just assumed.


First, you rejected the evidence in the link given before in this thread because it used words like "probably". Now in this last paragraph quoted you insult science for assuming there can only be one explanation. That seems like wanting it both ways to me. Isn't the use of words like probably suggesting that people AREN'T being dogmatic and are in fact open to new explanations if they're shown to be better?

[Calzaer]

And notice, the resounding concert of crickets.

A tumbleweed rolls past.

Where is theophilis?

He's off causing another ruckus somewhere else, leaving this one to die off in his wake. He'll bring up the exact same point again as soon as this thread falls off the first page, and say the exact same things as if they were clever, original, and new.

[HRG]

Originally posted by theophilus


All of the "evidence" that has been produced to support evolution is interpreted within an evolutionary assumption, e.g., when a new fossil is discovered, evaluation BEGINS from the assumption that it fits somewhere in the evolutionary scheme.


Yiou mean like everytime a new asteroid is discovered, astronomers BEGIN from the assumption that it moves according to Newton's theory, as refined by Einstein ?

Or like everytime a new chemical compound is discovered, chemists BEGIN from the assumption that its production is consistent with thermodynamics ?

Those secular scientists really are dogmatic!


Difficile est satiram non scribere!
HRG.

[Jobar]

Daggah:
You said that every time you asked for evidence of evolution in our evolution forum, you received "exactly ZERO replies." (Your words.) This is SIMPLY NOT TRUE. I went back and looked, theophilus - every single discussion you EVER started in our evolution forum was quickly abandoned by you!

theophilus:
Well, perhaps you're confusing me with another Theophilus. As far as I know, I've posted in the Evolution thread exactly once and that was to ask a question, not to argue.

Theophilus, your response is disingenuous at best. Daggah was *not* speaking solely about the latest thread.

Do you know what hysterical blindness is? I think you are suffering from some philosophical analogue of it. You refuse to see what is placed before you, waved around, painted in multi colors, or juggled amusingly and skillfully. I don't know if it is the fear of death and extinction, or fear of your deep commitment to your beliefs being wrong; but since hysterical blindness is almost always a response to some overwhelming fear, I would be willing to bet that one of those is it. Of course, I'm not a betting man, but still...

Donning my moderator hat, I require all the discussion of evolution to be carried on in the appropriate forum. Any further posts which have that as a central topic will be moved to E/C and merged into the 'theophilus vs. Darwin' thread. (And since that is a time consuming procedure, I will see to it that the perpetrator is hung up in irons, keelhauled, and then have their ice cream ration reduced.)

We all know that some discussion of E/C is relevant to the EoG forum- as is, occasionally, some element from all the rest of our philosophical forums. This latest, though, is very far into E/C territory. Jobar.

[Thomas Ash]

Originally posted by theophilus
Thomas; <snip> Darwin gave a "credible" excuse for people to believe the theory by giving an explanation for how evolution worked, i.e., natural selection.
However, this explanation, his various observations, i.e. Finch beaks, demonstrated nothing regarding macro-evolution. This was accomplished by an unsubstantiated extrapolation from micro to macro evolution.

...which is perfectly justifiable. The theory of evolution (except in Gould et al) is simply cases of 'micro' evolution accumulating over millions and millions of years. Which, unless you're a double nutcase Young Earther rather than a single nutcase Old Earther ( :p ), you surely accept. I you do, you have to admit micro changes, which happened even in the last century, would pile up.

[Just_An_Atheist]

"Your question is mistaken.
Saying "just" the universe as if you know that the universe is "simple" is just begging the question."

No, I'm not begging the question. Occam's Razzor says that you should not attempt to account for anything past what is needed to explain something. If all things are equal, then the theory with more economic principles are to be prefered with more economic principles. If all things are equal with the evidence between the existence or the nonexistence of a God when trying to explain the universe, then God's nonexistence would have to be prefered



Furthermore, while most theologies see God as a "self-existing" entity, whatever that means, your statement says nothing whether or not God actually exists.

[bd-from-kg]

Jobar:

OK, fair enough. All of the stuff on this post relates directly to Ockham’s Razor and the nature of science generally.

theophilus:

I’m preparing a post on evolution-specific points to be posted on the E/C thread ASAP. I don’t really expect a reply there (the future does tend to resemble the past), but you never know.

I'm sure you'll be able to cite a couple of examples where evolution has successfully predicted anything. Or does that only apply to creation?

Certainly it applies to creationism. Creationism predicts absolutely nothing. Or if you prefer, it predicts a great may things, practically all of them false. See the section on Predictions of Creationism in the Transitional Fossils FAQ (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#pred) cited earlier.

Of course you can say that creationism doesn’t really predict any of these things. And that’s true. God could have gone about things any way He pleased. He could have deliberately chosen to do things in such a way as to make it look as though the theory of evolution is true. But that’s just the problem. Creationism is compatible with any evidence whatsoever. No matter what’s found, it can be “explained” by saying “that’s just the way God did it” (just as any other state of affairs - the existence of massive amounts of apparently gratuitous evil, for example - can be “explained” by saying that God chose to do things that way for His own mysterious reasons.

But I think your main hangup here is that you have a confused notion of what constitutes a “prediction”. And this is closely related to your misconception of what science is about.

In very general terms, science is the systematic analysis of the “real world” (or the “natural” or “physical” world if you prefer: the things accessible to our senses). Generally, the purpose is to be able to infer something we don’t know directly from what we know directly. A very important technique for doing this is to find causal laws connecting future events to past ones. Typically a causal law says that if such-and-such conditions obtain at a given time and place, some other specified conditions will obtain at a later time and place (generally nearby). Ideally the relationship can be expressed mathematically in such a way as to allow for very precise predictions. This is clearly the kind of “scientific theory”, and the kind of “prediction,” that you have in mind.

But the future is not the only thing we don’t know about directly. Even allowing for the most liberal interpretation of the term “know directly”, there are a lot of things about the past that we cannot know directly. So if we’re to know anything about them, we have to infer them from things we do know directly – which is to say, things in the present. Thus archeology studies the history of humans in circumstances where no records were made or any records that were made were lost. Other disciplines, like astronomy, geology, and biology, study (among other things) the distant past, before there were any humans.

The techniques used to discover causal laws and those used to learn about the past are naturally very different. In the former case the obvious way to test the hypothesis that a regularity holds universally is to use the regularity itself to make a testable prediction about what will happen under carefully specified conditions. (Often the test is in the form of an experiment.) If the prediction holds, this tends to confirm the hypothesis. But in the case of the sciences devoted to studying the past, this isn’t generally possible. A far more common procedure is to infer what happened by finding traces of past events. The “prediction” phase then consists of predicting that other traces will be found to exist (and that certain kinds of traces will not be found because they could only be produced by a different course of events than the one hypothesized).

Now this is all very general; its point is simply to indicate the kind of thing that counts as a prediction in sciences that study the past. A good illustrative example that should help make this much clearer can be found here (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/jan97.html).

Well, if you really knew anything about creation theory, you'd know that it does not propose millions of distinct species, so I guess you're just displaying YOUR ignorance, aren’t' you.

Um, that depends on which creationist you’re talking to. For example, Stephen Caesar clearly uses the term “macroevolution” to refer to speciation in the article Microevolution within a Species - Yes; Macroevolution between Species — No (http://www.creationism.org/caesar/microevol1.htm). But since you’re apparently using it to refer to larger transitions – between genera and phyla, for example, let’s run with that. (I’ll also assume, unless you correct me, that you’re a young-earth creationist, since most creationists are, and because the only rationale for saying that God only created the “kinds” directly seems to be that all of the species would obviously not fit into the ark.)

If you say that God only created each “kind”, you immediately have a choice. Either you can say that God “directed” the development of each “kind” into numerous species. Or you can say that the development of each kind proceeded naturally (presumably along the lines described by Darwin, since it’s hard to imagine any fundamentally different natural scenario).

If you say that God directed the development of each species, your hypothesis is much more complicated than that of direct creation of each species. You’re now hypothesizing two supernatural processes: direct creation and indirect creation. Since the original point here was that the “Divine intervention” hypothesis is supposedly simpler than the neo-Darwinian hypothesis (and therefore is favored by OR), choosing a pointlessly complicated version of the “DI” hypothesis doesn’t exactly help your case. What scientific reason can you give for violating OR in this way?

On the other hand, if you say that the development of each “kind” into numerous species occurred naturally, you’re forced to say that evolution along Darwinian lines can occur much, much faster than even the neo-Darwinians claim. If evolution can occur this fast naturally, there’s no reason whatsoever to suppose that it can’t account for the development of all species from a single line in geological time. And if natural evolution is a satisfactory explanation, why resort to “God did it”? That’s not the way these things are done. Since we have an adequate natural explanation of volcanoes ant thunderstorms, we don’t invoke gods to explain them. Since we have a good natural explanation of how the sun can give off light and heat for billions of years, we don’t invoke a sun god to explain it. Even creationists accept the principle that a supernatural theory is out of court if there’s a perfectly good natural theory.

Thus, either way (whether God directed the evolution of each “kind” or it occurred naturally) you’re violating Ockham’s Razor.

Second, you are anthropomorphizing creation. It is no harder for an infinite, omnipotent God to command the creation of one entity or billions.

Exactly. Once we posit Divine intervention we might as well throw Ockham’s Razor out the window. And you imagine that this is an argument for a DI hypothesis based on OR?

However, all naturalistic theories demand a complex interaction of forces.

And this is an argument against naturalistic theories? Wow! It sounds like you’ve gone off the deep end. Naturalistic theories are inherently inferior to supernatural ones!

How nice to be able to dismiss the foundation of their belief as merely superfluous? Let's just do that for any idea that gets in our way.

Newton and Kepler’s belief that God was responsible for the orderliness of the natural world was superfluous in the sense that it played no role in their theories. Compare:

(1) Nature is orderly.
(2) Nature is orderly because it reflects God’s orderly nature.

Ockham’s Razor demands the simplest hypothesis; common sense demands the least committal. Either way, (1) is clearly preferable to (2).

[bd-from-kg]

To All:

For what it's worth, I've posted a reply dealing with the more "evolution-specific" stuff on the theophilus vs. Darwin thread (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=62713) that Jobar set up in the E/C forum.

[theophilus]

Originally posted by bd-from-kg
Jobar:

OK, fair enough. All of the stuff on this post relates directly to Ockham’s Razor and the nature of science generally.

theophilus:

I’m preparing a post on evolution-specific points to be posted on the E/C thread ASAP. I don’t really expect a reply there (the future does tend to resemble the past), but you never know.



Your formatting here gives the impresson that this is my quote; it is not. Please correct this.

[EGGO]

No it doesn't,

this format does that

Which is exactly what he used. You're not being misrepresented.

[Spenser]

I'm guessing Theo is still EVADING the evolution thread???

[theophilus]

Originally posted by EGGO
No it doesn't,



Which is exactly what he used. You're not being misrepresented.

That's funny. I ddon't remember asking if you thought I was being misrepresented, so I don't see how it is your business to challenge my statement.

[theophilus]

Originally posted by Spenser
I'm guessing Theo is still EVADING the evolution thread???

Well, congratulations, you're still batting 1000. You're wrong about this just like you're wrong on all your other "guesses." Maybe you should consider another line of work.

In fact, as of yesterday, it was Wrdsman who was dodging. He had posted noting after his OP except a post denying my claim that he had ducked out - but not rebutting my answer to his OP.

Now, isn't that curious.

[theophilus]

Originally posted by bd-from-kg
Newton and Kepler’s belief that God was responsible for the orderliness of the natural world was superfluous in the sense that it played no role in their theories. Compare:

(1) Nature is orderly.
(2) Nature is orderly because it reflects God’s orderly nature.

Ockham’s Razor demands the simplest hypothesis; common sense demands the least committal. Either way, (1) is clearly preferable to (2).

But that's patently absurd and false.

1. Newton, etc. believed that the universe reflected the orderliness of its creator.

2. Therefore, they were able to formulate descriptive "laws" of how the univers operated.

3. However, #1 was superfluous to their theories.

Here is the truth.

1. same as above
2. same as above
3. Naturalists have no basis for believing that the universe operates in an orderly way.
4. Therefore, they have no way to formulate meaningful theories of how the universe works.

[Spurious Quirk]

Originally posted by theophilus

3. Naturalists have no basis for believing that the universe operates in an orderly way.


Except, of course, for the experiential observation that it does seem to operate in an orderly way.

Cheers

[Spenser]

Originally posted by theophilus
Well, congratulations, you're still batting 1000. You're wrong about this just like you're wrong on all your other "guesses." Maybe you should consider another line of work.

In fact, as of yesterday, it was Wrdsman who was dodging. He had posted noting after his OP except a post denying my claim that he had ducked out - but not rebutting my answer to his OP.

Now, isn't that curious.

My apologies, however I was referring to this (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=62713) thread.

Now that I am aware that you are at least in that forum its been a pleasure watching them tear you apart. Now why avoid Oolon's post??? I wonder...

[EGGO]

Originally posted by theophilus
That's funny. I ddon't remember asking if you thought I was being misrepresented, so I don't see how it is your business to challenge my statement.

It is quite funny, you were worried that his format made it sound like you were being quoted. I said "no it doesn't." For some reason, you took it as some attack or challenge when it wasn't.

Here's a thought, why don't you tend to the posts that have a higher priority in needing a response from you, rather than attacking posts like this, whose nature is just to inform you of other posts?

It won't surprise me you're going to hit that quote button on this post instead of all the other ones that actually challenge whatever it is you're going for.

[Wayne Delia]

Originally posted by theophilus
Your formatting here gives the impresson that this is my quote; it is not. Please correct this. Speaking of formatting, you've got a similar major problem yourself. You are evidently responding to quoted material within the original <QUOTE> block, so it appears that you have attributed your own comments to the person to whom you are responding. You do this consistently, so there are many examples to show you if you can't figure out what I'm talking about. Ordinarily, this would be a nitpick, but since you now seem to be making an issue of it when you think someone else is doing it to you, I wanted to take this opportunity to help you extract your foot from your mouth.

WMD

[Wayne Delia]

Originally posted by theophilus
That's funny. I ddon't remember asking if you thought I was being misrepresented, so I don't see how it is your business to challenge my statement. You didn't ask for my opinion either, but the clear case is that you are wrong, and at worst, you are doing the same formatting-related mis-attribution you're now complaining about. In any case, would it be advisable for everyone else to withhold all comments unless you specifically solicit comments? Are you sure you know how discussion forums work?

WMD

[theophilus]

Originally posted by Spurious Quirk
Except, of course, for the experiential observation that it does seem to operate in an orderly way.

Cheers

Experiments based on the assumption that things operate in an orderly way.

[theophilus]

Naturalist: "But we have to assume that things operate in an orderly way or else we couldn't do science without involving God and we know that God doesn't exist because we've never seen any scientific proof that he does."


Hmmmmmmmmmmm.

[Wayne Delia]

Originally posted by theophilus
Naturalist: "But we have to assume that things operate in an orderly way or else we couldn't do science without involving God."


Hmmmmmmmmmmm. Christian: "Assume my God exists. Go look for evidence based on that assumption. Therefore, my God exists."

Hmmmmmmmmmmm right back atcha - "dueling strawmen."

WMD

[theophilus]

Originally posted by Wayne Delia
You didn't ask for my opinion either, but the clear case is that you are wrong, and at worst, you are doing the same formatting-related mis-attribution you're now complaining about. In any case, would it be advisable for everyone else to withhold all comments unless you specifically solicit comments? Are you sure you know how discussion forums work?

WMD

You're right. I didn't ask for your opinion. But since you chose to butt-in, here is the offending section:

theophilus:

I’m preparing a post on evolution-specific points to be posted on the E/C thread ASAP. I don’t really expect a reply there (the future does tend to resemble the past), but you never know.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sure you'll be able to cite a couple of examples where evolution has successfully predicted anything. Or does that only apply to creation?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[/b]

Now, I'm sure you're much smater than I am, but it appears to me that posting my name with a colon gives the clear impression that what follows is my statement. Since I know that it isn't, I'm able to figure out what he intended, but not everyone would.

Oh, and since you're making the claim, please show exactly where I'm "doing the same formatting-related mis-attribution you're now complaining about. " Since you made the charge, you must have a sample close at hand.

And, yes, I know how the forum works. Atheists make assertions with no evidence and then simply ridicule or dismiss opposing evidence.

[theophilus]

Originally posted by Wayne Delia
Christian: "Assume my God exists. Go look for evidence based on that assumption. Therefore, my God exists."

Hmmmmmmmmmmm right back atcha - "dueling strawmen."

WMD

I know I shouldn't respond to every thoughless, juvenille outburst, but if I don't, I'm accused of evading or of not having an answer.

I don't "assume God exists" as the basis for God's existence and it's only because you assume that all claims are evaluated by the same sort of evidence, i.e., naturalistic, that you would even make a silly statement like this.

So, right back at you - show how your standard of evidence is valid for establishing the existence of immaterial, "super-natural" entities.

[theophilus]

Originally posted by Wayne Delia
Speaking of formatting, you've got a similar major problem yourself. You are evidently responding to quoted material within the original <QUOTE> block, so it appears that you have attributed your own comments to the person to whom you are responding. You do this consistently, so there are many examples to show you if you can't figure out what I'm talking about. Ordinarily, this would be a nitpick, but since you now seem to be making an issue of it when you think someone else is doing it to you, I wanted to take this opportunity to help you extract your foot from your mouth.

WMD

"You do this consistently, so there are many examples to show you if you can't figure out what I'm talking about."

I can't, so please supply.

[theophilus]

Originally posted by EGGO
It is quite funny, you were worried that his format made it sound like you were being quoted. I said "no it doesn't." For some reason, you took it as some attack or challenge when it wasn't.

Here's a thought, why don't you tend to the posts that have a higher priority in needing a response from you, rather than attacking posts like this, whose nature is just to inform you of other posts?

It won't surprise me you're going to hit that quote button on this post instead of all the other ones that actually challenge whatever it is you're going for.

Well, since you're making another claim, i.e., that I ignore other posts that actually challenge whatever..", I'm sure you won't have any trouble giving examples where I've done that.

BTW, the fact that you said "whatever it is you're going for" is instructive - you don't know what I'm going for but you feel competent to instruct how I should conduct my posts. Fascinating.

Here's an even better suggestion. Why don't you tend to posts that have something to do with you and butt out of my communication to a specific poster?

[theophilus]

Jobar:

I think that the way the post was formatted does give the impression that this was "Theophilus'" speaking and it would have been a simple matter for the administrators to grant his request to change it.

OK, fair enough. All of the stuff on this post relates directly to Ockham’s Razor and the nature of science generally.

[Wayne Delia]

Originally posted by theophilus
"You do this consistently, so there are many examples to show you if you can't figure out what I'm talking about."

I can't, so please supply. First, if I do that (which I will, of course), would that qualify as falsifying your hypothesis that atheists never back up their assertions? If not, then what would falsify it?

Second, I am honestly surprised that you are unable to understand what I'm talking about here. Let's limit it to this thread. On the 2nd page of posts, the fourth post down is allegedly from you. Yet the entire post consists of a block quote which you have attributed to bd-from-kg. It consists of bold and plain fonts, of course, but there's no attribution other than the opening line essentially saying "everything in this quote block was quoted from bd-from-kg." Perhaps you assumed that the difference between your words and his was obvious from the different fonts, but you are currently complaining that someone's name followed by a colon attributes everything that follows to that person's name. You have attributed all of your own comments to bd-from-kg in very much the same manner that you are now complaining about someone else doing it to you.

Is there anything else you'd like me to help you with?

WMD

[theophilus]

Originally posted by Wayne Delia
First, if I do that (which I will, of course), would that qualify as falsifying your hypothesis that atheists never back up their assertions? If not, then what would falsify it?

Second, I am honestly surprised that you are unable to understand what I'm talking about here. Let's limit it to this thread.

Another misrepresentation. Where did I say that I was "unable to understand what" you were talking about here. Asking for an example to back up a charge is not an expression of misunderstanding. You, however either misunderstood or deliberately distorted what I said.

On the 2nd page of posts, the fourth post down is allegedly from you. Yet the entire post consists of a block quote which you have attributed to bd-from-kg. It consists of bold and plain fonts, of course,
WMD

Of course? OF COURSE? I love the way you gloss over that and procede right along.

This is standard UBB formatting and everyone here knows how it works. It is nothing like what Jobar did, so your claim is still false.

[Wyz_sub10]

Okay - let's put this "quote" issue to bed.

When quoting another post, the format should be:

-------------------------------------------
quoted text with author's name (preferrably bold)

reply from author

quoted text - no need for name if it is the same original quoted message

reply from author

-------------------------------------------

So for both sides - be clear when quoting someone. The name should be part of the quote. If it appears outside of quotations, then it is assumed that they are being addressed and not quoted (like in a letter).

Also, quotes and respones should be separated and not all combined into a single block quote.

I hope this addresses all concerns on the matter.

Wyz_sub10,
IIBD Administrator

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by theophilus
Your formatting here gives the impresson that this is my quote; it is not. Please correct this.

There is nothing to correct, by your own arguments:

You're using inductive reasoning to make your claim; and, as you've argued elsewhere, the testing of the hypothesis, "Your formatting here gives the impresson that this is my quote", would have to be based on a logical fallacy and the presumption of causation which cannot be demonstrated. You've asserted that merely dismissing this because it gets in the way of proving what you already know to be true isn't acceptable. Causation cannot be demonstrated and so your claim is a fraud.

[theophilus]

Originally posted by Dr Rick
There is nothing to correct, by your own arguments:

You're using inductive reasoning to make your claim; and, as you've argued elsewhere, the testing of the hypothesis would have to be based on a logical fallacy and the presumption of causation which cannot be demonstrated. You've asserted that merely dismissing this because it gets in the way of proving what you already know to be true isn't acceptable. Causation cannot be demonstrated and so your claim is a fraud.

You see what ignorance does; it makes you continue to make a fool of yourself in public.

If you had the least inkling of my arguments, which you should by now, or you should go back to the home, you'd know that causation is not a problem for me because I DO NOT BASE MY POSITION ON CAUSATION.

Pay attention now, I am not a naturalist/materialist, I am a Christian theist. My position is based on God's continual government of his creation which insures that it operates in an orderly, intelligible manner.

Ok, now you can go back to sleep.

[tribalbeeyatch]

Originally posted by theophilus
This is standard UBB formatting and everyone here knows how it works. It is nothing like what Jobar did, so your claim is still false. Ummm...that's not standard formatting at all. I've been skipping over a lot of your point-by-point responses because they are difficult to follow. You are free to disregard my plea (although I would be surprised if I were the only one that isn't willing to put in the extra effort to read your posts), but it would be much more reader-friendly were you to close each block quote and insert your response before starting a new block quote. Like so:
I said
Then you replied
Then I said
Then you said

[edited to add]

And for what it's worth, I didn't find it at all confusing that the earlier poster addressed you by your name followed by a colon. It's a common enough practice to begin a letter (particularly a business letter) with "Dear theophilus:" that it didn't occur to me to take it as anything other than a salutation.

[theophilus]

Originally posted by tribalbeeyatch
Ummm...that's not standard formatting at all. I've been skipping over a lot of your point-by-point responses because they are difficult to follow. You are free to disregard my plea (although I would be surprised if I were the only one that isn't willing to put in the extra effort to read your posts), but it would be much more reader-friendly were you to close each block quote and insert your response before starting a new block quote. Like so:

This is too funny. "that's not standard formatting" but it's exactly what you just did. Look at your message and then look at mine immediately above it. The initial formatting is exactly the same.

Here's what your proposed solution shows in the reply window.

Then you replied

Then you said

No indication of what was said; impossible to respond to.

[tribalbeeyatch]

Originally posted by theophilus
No indication of what was said; impossible to respond to. Pardon? Are you saying that when you quote my post (in which I used the standard block quote format), you lose the text quoted therein? If so, then that's a good thing! The software prunes out that text so that you don't have to delete it when you are writing your reply. And that's also another good reason (beyond mere readability) to use the standard format -- it is easier to respond to.

[theophilus]

Originally posted by tribalbeeyatch
And for what it's worth, I didn't find it at all confusing that the earlier poster addressed you by your name followed by a colon. It's a common enough practice to begin a letter (particularly a business letter) with "Dear theophilus:" that it didn't occur to me to take it as anything other than a salutation.

triabalbeeyathch:


Well, for what it's worth, and no offense, but I wasn't taking a poll. The formatting was confusing. I thought it was and, since I was the one concerned, my reasonable request should have been granted.

[theophilus]

Originally posted by tribalbeeyatch
Pardon? Are you saying that when you quote my post (in which I used the standard block quote format), you lose the text quoted therein? If so, then that's a good thing! The software prunes out that text so that you don't have to delete it when you are writing your reply. And that's also another good reason (beyond mere readability) to use the standard format -- it is easier to respond to.

I'm saying that your formatting makes it impossible to respond to posts of any length unless you have a photographic memory. The original quotes are dropped which often make it impossible to give an intelligent response to their remarks.

How would you resond to this remark without knowing the reference?

"That's not true."

Since most of the people here don't feel they need to give any justification for their challenges, there is no way to know what they are denying.

[tribalbeeyatch]

This is too funny. "that's not standard formatting" but it's exactly what you just did. Look at your message and then look at mine immediately above it. The initial formatting is exactly the same.Oops, I missed this on the first pass. I'm not sure what you are saying that I "just did", but there should be an obvious difference between my posts and yours -- namely that the text that I quote is in block quotes while my responses to those quotes are not.I don't know what else I can say to convince you that putting quoted text in block quotes is more convenient.
Here's what your proposed solution shows in the reply window.Another bit that I missed due to improper formatting...Notice how I not only missed this bit, but that I was also unsure (in my reply immediately preceding this one) as to what you were referring to with your "No indication of what was said" comment? Not only would proper formatting probably increase the number of people reading your posts (at least those lazy/marginally interested ones such as myself), but it would also help them to understand your points more fully. If you refuse to change your formatting then so be it, but I would certainly appreciate it.

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by theophilus
I DO NOT BASE MY POSITION ON CAUSATION.

I am not a naturalist/materialist, I am a Christian theist. My position is based on God's continual government of his creation which insures that it operates in an orderly, intelligible manner.

You are arguing for causation with your position, Theo; you are arguing that a god is the reason (cause) for what you claim is the "orderly, intelligible operation" of the cosmos.

[theophilus]

tribalbeeyatch

Here's an example of what I mean.

My current remarks are in BOLD

Originally posted by bd-from-kg
[b]Jobar:

OK, fair enough. All of the stuff on this post relates directly to Ockham’s Razor and the nature of science generally.

theophilus:

I’m preparing a post on evolution-specific points to be posted on the E/C thread ASAP. I don’t really expect a reply there (the future does tend to resemble the past), but you never know.



Certainly it applies to creationism. Creationism predicts absolutely nothing. Or if you prefer, it predicts a great may things, practically all of them false. See the section on Predictions of Creationism in the Transitional Fossils FAQ (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#pred) cited earlier.

What applies to creationism. Since my quote is dropped in the reply window, I have no idea what he's talking about.


Um, that depends on which creationist you’re talking to. For example, Stephen Caesar clearly uses the term “macroevolution” to refer to speciation in the article

Um, what depends on who I'm talking to. Again, my quote doesn't show up.

Exactly. Once we posit Divine intervention we might as well throw Ockham’s Razor out the window. And you imagine that this is an argument for a DI hypothesis based on OR?

Of course 'Exactly.' Exactly what?

And this is an argument against naturalistic theories? Wow! It sounds like you’ve gone off the deep end. Naturalistic theories are inherently inferior to supernatural ones!

And "what" is an argument against naturalistic theories. There's no quote and he doesn't include my argument in his response.

Now, if you want everybody to start writing like they're responding to a letter, that would work:

"My dear Theophilus:

Your argumet that X is irrelevant to blah blah."

but I doubt you'll get many takers.

[tribalbeeyatch]

Originally posted by theophilus
I'm saying that your formatting makes it impossible to respond to posts of any length unless you have a photographic memory. The original quotes are dropped which often make it impossible to give an intelligent response to their remarks.On the contrary, the entirety of the post is likely there for your review if you scroll down on the "Reply to Topic" screen. Further, you can open a new window/tab for your reply and thereby leave the entirety of the post available for review in that way, or quote the original post to your text app if you are copying/pasting your replies rather than typing them directly into the "Your Reply" window. Regardless of what (if any -- if a post is meaty enough to respond to, then I find that the poster's own words are substantive enough to render it unnecessary) method of reviewing the original post you might choose, that possible bit of additional work is miniscule compared to the extra work that it takes to remove all of the unnecessary (just for review) text that your method leaves in the reply. But I've wasted enough of everybody's time on this already, so I'll leave your own formatting to your discretion. Cheers!

[theophilus]

Originally posted by Dr Rick
You are arguing for causation with your position, Theo; you are arguing that a god is the reason (cause) for what you claim is the "orderly, intelligible operation" of the cosmos.

I AM NOT ARGUING FOR CAUSATION. I was explaining how my worldview supports causation while yours doesn't.

Certainly even you can see that there is a difference between having a foundation for causation (Christian theism) that doesn't doesn't DEPEND on causation (atheistic naturalism).

[theophilus]

Originally posted by tribalbeeyatch
On the contrary, the entirety of the post is likely there for your review if you scroll down on the "Reply to Topic" screen.

So, now I'm not only wrong, I'm incapable of seeing what's right there in front of me.

No, you are wrong. What showed in my reply was EXACTLY what appeared in the reply window.

Further, you can open a new window/tab for your reply and thereby leave the entirety of the post available for review in that way, or quote the original post to your text app if you are copying/pasting your replies rather than typing them directly into the "Your Reply" window.

Well, of course. I could have a second computer and keep one window open to the origina post. Or, I could hire a secretary to type out the original post. Oh, I know, I could print out the original post and then refer to it when I reply.

Or, I could just do it the sensible way.

Now, invoking Occam's Razor, which would be the correct answer.

[tribalbeeyatch]

Needlessly copy/pasting portions of your post because they don't appear when I hit 'reply'...Originally posted by theophilus
So, now I'm not only wrong, I'm incapable of seeing what's right there in front of me.

No, you are wrong. What showed in my reply was EXACTLY what appeared in the reply window.You misunderstand. If you scroll down on the "Reply to Topic" screen (not just within the "Your Reply" window), you'll find that the more recent posts are displayed.
Well, of course. I could have a second computer and keep one window open to the origina post. Or, I could hire a secretary to type out the original post. Oh, I know, I could print out the original post and then refer to it when I reply.

Or, I could just do it the sensible way.

Now, invoking Occam's Razor, which would be the correct answer. Errr...The suggestions that I offered for reviewing your post require mere keystrokes (at worst - a right click or a spin of the scrollwheel on your mouse suffices for the simplest methods), there's no need to resort to ridiculous exaggerations. If I've offended you, then I apologize; that certainly wasn't my intention. I think that if you'd bother to look around the IIDB a bit, you'd find that the vast majority of veteran posters use block quotes as I've suggested. Perhaps we are all not "sensible", or perhaps we have learned the advantages that block quotes hold for reader and responder alike. Cheers!

[Spenser]

Originally posted by theophilus
I AM NOT ARGUING FOR CAUSATION. I was explaining how my worldview supports causation while yours doesn't.

This is simply saying:

I am not arguing for causation, I am arguing for causation!!!

Unless you think we are stupid (and you probably do) you ARE arguing for your world view, which YOU claim supports causation. If your world view supports causation then you are in fact arguing for causation. Though you tend to state it in a way where causation is supposed to be assumed, not supported. Since you are the only one who assumes causation, we all would love to see your argument for it (+ evidence would be nice).

[Angrillori]

Originally posted by theophilus
Naturalist: "But we have to assume that things operate in an orderly way or else we couldn't do science without involving God and we know that God doesn't exist because we've never seen any scientific proof that he does."


Hmmmmmmmmmmm.

Are you insane????!?!??!?!

We can see there is order in the universe. Duh. Therefore we ask why. Then we attempt to explain why. Using only what we see. I don't assume order, I see it. Then I attempt to explain it. No god needed. [deleted insult]

Example:
Observation:
The planets seem to travel in ordered elliptical orbits.

Question:
Why?

Possible explanation:
Perhaps all objects share a universal attraction for each other.

Experiment, experiment, experiment.
Look, the objects we've tested do show attraction for each other!
This explains our observations. Leaves the door open for further research, and relies solely on testable, natural phenomena.

NOW TELL ME WHY WE NEEDED TO BELIEVE IN GOD TO MAKE ANY THEORY????

[Angrillori]

Originally posted by theophilus
Pay attention now, I am not a naturalist/materialist, I am a Christian theist. My position is based on God's continual government of his creation which insures that it operates in an orderly, intelligible manner.

Ok, now you can go back to sleep.


Oh. And this post is on Occam's Razor?

Are you seriously contending that :

this Universe which operates solely on its own internal, observable, physical laws which can be described, tested, and observed

is more complex than:

this universe which operates on its own internal observable physical laws which can be described, tested, and observed AND needs to be kept in some balance by a force that is external, cannot be observed, descri