22 Nov 2007, 11:55 am
techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,529
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi
22 Nov 2007, 3:59 pm
22 Nov 2007, 8:02 pm
techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,529
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi
22 Nov 2007, 11:32 pm
27 Nov 2007, 1:15 pm
Ok, Gromit here are some of my answers...
Gromit wrote:
If your biology teaching in school was like mine, you had little chance of understanding evolution from that.
In communist society learning Evolution was a basic cornerstone of 'historical materialism',so I believe that at least I understood its basics.
Perhaps my representation here is a little bit vulgar,but this is an Aspie message board,not an online exam.
Gromit wrote:
Wrong. The hallmark of evolution is that you have similarities that depend not only on function, and that the most parsimonious explanation for the similarities not attributable to function is descent from a common ancestor.
Similarity does not mean causation.
This fallacy of causal reasoning was exposed by David Hume in 18 century..too bad that modern scientists do not read philosophy.I have mentioned this on other thread,but lets repeat it,shall we?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume
Quote:
The idea of causation
Hume begins Chapter VII of the first Enquiry with a hunt for the impression behind our idea of causal power. This has been interpreted as an attempt to specify the parameters of the concept of causation — i.e. what we mean when we deploy causal terms — and the traditional analytical take on Hume’s answer is that it is to be found in the regular succession of certain of our impressions; their ‘constant conjunction’. On this interpretation, Hume is basically saying that when we make statements of the form "X caused Y", or "Y happened because of X", we just mean that X happened, then Y did, and that X-like events always precede Y-like ones.
However, this take is almost certainly flawed, for at least two reasons. Firstly, Hume offers two ‘definitions’ of causation, the first of which is in terms of pure regularity, but the second of which introduces the notion of the natural passage of the mind from the appearance of the cause to the idea of the effect (e.g. someone knocks a coffee mug off the table and, having always experienced unsuspended objects to fall, you anticipate its falling to the floor). This feeling stems from a natural association of the two events after persistent observation of them as constantly conjoined. And it is this feeling, or ‘determination of the mind’, which is the basis of our idea of necessity, i.e. that the cause necessitates its effect.
Secondly, this is the basis for our idea not in the sense that our concept of necessary connection can be analysed into such feelings of anticipation, expectation, etc., but that we then come to see the world as structured by a certain predictability of order, and we attribute this predictability to the external objects themselves, i.e. we attribute them a causal power which makes things fall out, or occur in, the way they do; a property of necessary connection. So Hume's argument is that the mind synthesises and then projects a concept of causal power when it observes similar events to occur together repeatedly. This is an example of what the philosopher Simon Blackburn has entitled ‘projectivism’; Hume argues that we project our feeling of predictability onto the objects, much as he argues that we project our moral attitudes onto situations or objects, as “nothing is more usual than to apply to external bodies every internal sensation which they occasion.”[18]
Hume begins Chapter VII of the first Enquiry with a hunt for the impression behind our idea of causal power. This has been interpreted as an attempt to specify the parameters of the concept of causation — i.e. what we mean when we deploy causal terms — and the traditional analytical take on Hume’s answer is that it is to be found in the regular succession of certain of our impressions; their ‘constant conjunction’. On this interpretation, Hume is basically saying that when we make statements of the form "X caused Y", or "Y happened because of X", we just mean that X happened, then Y did, and that X-like events always precede Y-like ones.
However, this take is almost certainly flawed, for at least two reasons. Firstly, Hume offers two ‘definitions’ of causation, the first of which is in terms of pure regularity, but the second of which introduces the notion of the natural passage of the mind from the appearance of the cause to the idea of the effect (e.g. someone knocks a coffee mug off the table and, having always experienced unsuspended objects to fall, you anticipate its falling to the floor). This feeling stems from a natural association of the two events after persistent observation of them as constantly conjoined. And it is this feeling, or ‘determination of the mind’, which is the basis of our idea of necessity, i.e. that the cause necessitates its effect.
Secondly, this is the basis for our idea not in the sense that our concept of necessary connection can be analysed into such feelings of anticipation, expectation, etc., but that we then come to see the world as structured by a certain predictability of order, and we attribute this predictability to the external objects themselves, i.e. we attribute them a causal power which makes things fall out, or occur in, the way they do; a property of necessary connection. So Hume's argument is that the mind synthesises and then projects a concept of causal power when it observes similar events to occur together repeatedly. This is an example of what the philosopher Simon Blackburn has entitled ‘projectivism’; Hume argues that we project our feeling of predictability onto the objects, much as he argues that we project our moral attitudes onto situations or objects, as “nothing is more usual than to apply to external bodies every internal sensation which they occasion.”[18]
Gromit wrote:
You can use similarities in morphology, physiology, behaviour, development, biogeography and genotype, and you will get similar family trees. The correlation will not be perfect because there is no one to one relationship between genotype and various expressions of the phenotype, but when you do the statistics, you will find that the pattern of similarities is very unlikely to have occurred by chance.
Again,same fallacy.
Similarity does not necessary mean similar origins.
Gromit wrote:
If instead you found that the family trees reconstructed from different aspects of the phenotype are uncorrelated, or you find that similarities depend only on function, then evolutionary theory can't explain what is going on. You would have falsified the whole thing.
Our ability to make patterns and to claim correlations is simply a habit of our minds to formulate concepts,not a property of objects.
Due to subjective nature of our perception we can never create 'objective' judgment.
Therefore our ability of creating patterns and correlations is simply methodological approach to objectivity,not objectivity itself.
If you confuse your methodological approach with 'order of things',then you are making metaphysics,not science.
Evolution may be methodological interpretation of nature,but due to our inherited subjectivity we must accept other (or potential) methodological approach.
Real scientific approach was that of Carolus Linnaeus,that simply classified existing life forms,according to their similarities,but haven't claimed causal relation between them.
Since it is acceptable to create concepts through similarities,but it is not acceptable to create causal relation between concept because of their similarities.
Darwin had crossed this important border,and started with metaphysical speculation.
Therefore...
This is a scientist (biologist):
And this is a naturalist metaphysicist :
This is a scientific work:
This is a work of speculative metaphysics:
And even the name "Origin of Species" is implication of causalistic speculative nature of this work.
First book is systematization of observable empirical facts,second one is speculation about origins of current observable facts.
Gromit wrote:
That is in contrast to Wallace, who was inspired to develop the theory of evolution by natural selection exactly through his observations of biogeography, and he took a lot less time than Darwin. If you want to claim people only saw what they expected to see based on the history of individuals, you will have to account for Wallace as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Russel_Wallace
Quote:
Wallace was strongly attracted to radical ideas. His advocacy of spiritualism and his belief in a non-material origin for the higher mental faculties of humans strained his relationship with the scientific establishment, especially with other early proponents of evolution.
Quote:
Unlike Darwin, Wallace began his career as a travelling naturalist already believing in the transmutation of species. The concept had been advocated by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, Erasmus Darwin, and Robert Grant, among others. It was widely discussed, but not generally accepted by leading naturalists, and was considered to have radical, even revolutionary connotations.[41][42] Prominent anatomists and geologists such as Georges Cuvier, Richard Owen, Adam Sedgwick, and Charles Lyell attacked it vigorously.[43][44] It has been suggested that Wallace accepted the idea of the transmutation of species in part because he was always inclined to favour radical ideas in politics, religion and science[41], and because he was unusually open to marginal, even fringe ideas in science.[45]
Quote:
According to his autobiography, it was while he was in bed with a fever that Wallace thought about Thomas Malthus's idea of positive checks on human population growth, and came up with the idea of natural selection.
So basically,Wallace like Darwin discovered something that he already believed in.
So.."Evolutionary theory is circular reasoning, in that evidence is interpreted as supporting evolution, but evolution is required to interpret the evidence. "
Gromit wrote:
I don't understand what you mean. Do you mean different interpretations of what truth is, of the meaning or "true", or different interpretations of what is true regarding a specific data set? That is a fundamental distinction, and we can't discuss anything about truth until we agree on what we discuss.
This that I have marked.
Gromit wrote:
You can account for a wide variety of observations using the same small set of principles, without having to say all the time "It's like that because God likes it that way, and we can't reproduce any of it now because God used different laws of physics than those that apply now".
Yes,in empirical sciences.
But Evolution cannot be observed,it only can be speculated.
While you can observe similarities of forms and gradation of complexity of organisms,you cannot observe causality between them.
Gromit wrote:
The same applies to evolutionary biology.
No.Evolution is not research of nature,it is interpretation of nature.
Gromit wrote:
Both evolutionary biology and cosmology are very much concerned with explaining contemporary phenomena. Evolution with patterns of similarity, cosmology with current distribution of matter and energy. How would you explain either of these without looking into their history?
Both of them try to explain contemporary phenomena through something that cannot be empirically verified (process of Evolution,Big-Bang).
Gromit wrote:
It doesn't eliminate supernatural entities, because it is impossible to prove that there are no supernatural entities. The assumption of supernatural influences is simply not necessary to account for what we see in the natural world.
To interpret one system,it is necessary to have meta-system through which first one can be interpreted.
Otherwise we get logical inconsistency.
Gromit wrote:
If you count that as atheistic, then all sciences are atheistic, with the exception of mathematics which does not depend on what happens in the natural world. You can carry on doing mathematics without any reference to the natural world, ever.
This is because mathematics is system of a priori synthetic judgments,and because of that laws of mathematics have always necessity.
Because of that mathematics (and logic) is root of all sciences.
Gromit wrote:
What do you mean by "deny"? I claim that religion is not science. I claim that by the criteria which classify physics and chemistry as science, evolutionary biology is also science, but creationism is not.
And I claim that both Evolution and Creationism are not science.Same goes to Cosmology.
Off course I presented my reasons,and you presented yours.
You have right to disagree with me, off course.
Gromit wrote:
I do think I have the right to deny the truth of what is blatantly untrue.
"What is the truth?" Pilate asked Jesus.
27 Nov 2007, 1:59 pm
27 Nov 2007, 2:19 pm
monty wrote:
Evolutionary taxonomy is a newer discipline that is more accurate (in agreement with the truth) than that of Linnaeus.
Oh,the 'truth'....
The word always used by people,but so little understood.
Ok here we have an empirical phenomena (this picture):
And this interpretations of it:
1.This is a picture
2.This is a picture of Rose.
3.This is a picture of flower
4.This is a picture of red rose.
5.This is a picture of 'Mary'
6.This is a picture of carbon-based organism
7.This is a picture of material object
8.This is a picture of symbol of love
9.This is a picture of a plant
10.This is a picture of beautiful thing
11.This is something
12.This is a picture of something
13.This is a picture of A
14 This is B that represents A
15.This is a rose
...Blah,Blah...
Which interpretation from above is right one?
What statement from above is the truth?
nominalist
Supporting Member
Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)
27 Nov 2007, 4:05 pm
27 Nov 2007, 4:06 pm
27 Nov 2007, 5:41 pm
nominalist
Supporting Member
Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)
27 Nov 2007, 6:02 pm
27 Nov 2007, 7:04 pm
27 Nov 2007, 7:12 pm
27 Nov 2007, 7:32 pm
27 Nov 2007, 7:38 pm
monty wrote:
I guess you would reject all the branches of geology that deal with the strata, or layers of various rocks that have been laid down (or lifted up, or cut through by streams) over the past billion years.
My brother is a geologist.
We both know that strata's can be created during very fast time,and even under laboratory conditions.
Not only this,but here is small evidence from "Science Direct" journal of structural geology:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_o ... e87c3bf77a
Quote:
Rapid creation and destruction of sedimentary basins on mature strike-slip faults: an example from the offshore Alpine Fault, New Zealand
Philip M. BarnesCorresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author, a, Rupert Sutherlandb, Bryan Davyb and Jean Delteilc
a National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), PO Box 14-901, Kilbirnie, Wellington, New Zealand
b Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences (GNS), PO Box 30368, Lower Hutt, New Zealand
c UMR Géosciences Azur, UNSA-CNRS, Valbonne, 06050, Sophia Antipolis, France
Received 31 January 2000; revised 5 March 2001; accepted 20 March 2001 Available online 20 August 2001.
Abstract
Seismic reflection profiles and multibeam bathymetric data are integrated to analyse the structure of the 25 km-long strike-slip Dagg Basin associated with the marine section of the Alpine Fault, Fiordland, New Zealand. The basin is developing in almost 3000 m water depth at a releasing bend, whilst contemporaneous transpression results in inversion of its southern end. Fiord-derived glacio-marine sediments flooded the basin during the last glaciation, and provide a stratigraphic framework for structural analysis. Geometrical analysis enables an estimation of 450–1650 m of dextral displacement on the Alpine Fault at the releasing bend since the development of an unconformity estimated to have formed at between 30 and 110 ka. This implies a dextral slip rate ranging from a possible minimum of 4 mm/yr to the maximum of 35 mm/yr constrained by the Pacific–Australian plate motion rate. Despite total dextral displacement of 480 km on the Alpine Fault zone and a growth history spanning 15–20 Myr, this geomorphically well expressed and structurally complex strike-slip basin developed and evolved rapidly during the late Pleistocene, and thus represents only the latest phase in the evolution of the Alpine Fault. Upward splaying structures within the fault zone exhibit a rapid spatial evolution in Pleistocene strata, which may reflect the interactions between high fault slip rate, voluminous sedimentation supply, inherited structural complexities in the basement rocks and deeper cover sequence, and interactions between adjacent faults. The present through-going releasing bend at the northern end of the basin may have evolved from a more complex pull-apart basin that developed between separate segments of the Alpine Fault. The results from Dagg Basin illustrate the rates at which structural complexities and sedimentary basins can develop within highly active, very mature, through-going continental wrench faults. Strike slip basins on the scale of 40–80 km2 on such faults may be ephemeral features that can be developed and destroyed on a time scale of 105–106 years.
Author Keywords: Alpine fault; Strike slip; Continental; New Zealand; Fiordland; Marine; Active tectonics; Seismic reflection; Multibeam bathymetry; Sedimentary basin
Corresponding Author Contact Information Corresponding author. Tel.: +64-4-383-0300; fax: +64-4-386-2153; email: [email protected]
Journal of Structural Geology
Volume 23, Issue 11, November 2001, Pages 1727-1739
Philip M. BarnesCorresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author, a, Rupert Sutherlandb, Bryan Davyb and Jean Delteilc
a National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), PO Box 14-901, Kilbirnie, Wellington, New Zealand
b Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences (GNS), PO Box 30368, Lower Hutt, New Zealand
c UMR Géosciences Azur, UNSA-CNRS, Valbonne, 06050, Sophia Antipolis, France
Received 31 January 2000; revised 5 March 2001; accepted 20 March 2001 Available online 20 August 2001.
Abstract
Seismic reflection profiles and multibeam bathymetric data are integrated to analyse the structure of the 25 km-long strike-slip Dagg Basin associated with the marine section of the Alpine Fault, Fiordland, New Zealand. The basin is developing in almost 3000 m water depth at a releasing bend, whilst contemporaneous transpression results in inversion of its southern end. Fiord-derived glacio-marine sediments flooded the basin during the last glaciation, and provide a stratigraphic framework for structural analysis. Geometrical analysis enables an estimation of 450–1650 m of dextral displacement on the Alpine Fault at the releasing bend since the development of an unconformity estimated to have formed at between 30 and 110 ka. This implies a dextral slip rate ranging from a possible minimum of 4 mm/yr to the maximum of 35 mm/yr constrained by the Pacific–Australian plate motion rate. Despite total dextral displacement of 480 km on the Alpine Fault zone and a growth history spanning 15–20 Myr, this geomorphically well expressed and structurally complex strike-slip basin developed and evolved rapidly during the late Pleistocene, and thus represents only the latest phase in the evolution of the Alpine Fault. Upward splaying structures within the fault zone exhibit a rapid spatial evolution in Pleistocene strata, which may reflect the interactions between high fault slip rate, voluminous sedimentation supply, inherited structural complexities in the basement rocks and deeper cover sequence, and interactions between adjacent faults. The present through-going releasing bend at the northern end of the basin may have evolved from a more complex pull-apart basin that developed between separate segments of the Alpine Fault. The results from Dagg Basin illustrate the rates at which structural complexities and sedimentary basins can develop within highly active, very mature, through-going continental wrench faults. Strike slip basins on the scale of 40–80 km2 on such faults may be ephemeral features that can be developed and destroyed on a time scale of 105–106 years.
Author Keywords: Alpine fault; Strike slip; Continental; New Zealand; Fiordland; Marine; Active tectonics; Seismic reflection; Multibeam bathymetry; Sedimentary basin
Corresponding Author Contact Information Corresponding author. Tel.: +64-4-383-0300; fax: +64-4-386-2153; email: [email protected]
Journal of Structural Geology
Volume 23, Issue 11, November 2001, Pages 1727-1739
And link above is from pro-evolutionist journal.
And there is case of creation of rapid deposit of sediments during St.Helens eruption:
http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Glossary/Sedi ... iment.html
Quote:
A major problem to people living downstream of Mount St. Helens was the high sedimentation rates resulting from stream erosion of the volcanic deposits. Streams were continuously down cutting channels, eroding their banks, and eating away at the avalanche and lahar deposits. This material was eventually transported downstream and deposited on the streambeds, decreasing the carrying capacity of the channels and increasing the chances of floods.
USGS Photograph taken on February 22, 1982, by Lyn Topinka.
USGS Photograph taken on February 22, 1982, by Lyn Topinka.
Quote:
In order to remove the May 18, 1980 sediment deposits, and to keep up with new sedimentation, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers began a dredging program on the Toutle (shown here), the Cowlitz, and the Columbia Rivers. By 1987, nearly 140 million cubic yards (110 million meters) of material had been removed from the channels. This is enough material to build twelve lanes of highway, one-foot thick, from New York to San Francisco.
USGS Photograph taken on February 5, 1981, by Lyn Topinka.
USGS Photograph taken on February 5, 1981, by Lyn Topinka.
Quote:
In the spring of 1987, construction of a sediment retention dam on the North Fork Toutle River began. This retention dam is designed to help stop the downstream movement of the sediment near where it begins - on the debris avalanche.
USGS Photograph taken in May 1989, by Steve Brantley.
USGS Photograph taken in May 1989, by Steve Brantley.
Quote:
Since May 18, 1980, sediment transport rates for the rivers flanking Mount St. Helens, especially the Toutle River, have been among the highest in the world. More than 20 million tons of suspended sediment was transported from the Toutle River basin in the first 7 months after the May 18, eruption, or 15 million tons in only 13 days. About 39 million tons of suspended sediment was transported from October 1981 to September 1982, enough to cover an average city block to a depth of 8 kilometers. ...
See also: http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Glossary/Debr ... ework.html
All links above are NOT from Creationist sources.
P.S
So we have empirical evidence of rapid strata creation,during short time.
Therefore theory of slow strata creation must be rejected,due to empirical evidence against.
But somehow,I believe that Evolutionists would ignore this,since its in contradiction with their belief system.
nominalist
Supporting Member
Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)
27 Nov 2007, 8:21 pm
