Shrunk wrote:
Besides which, that's not what I'm talking about. When creationists publish their "research" ( ), do they typically have it reviewed by established experts in the relevant fields? For instance, when Stephen Meyer claimed in "Darwin's Doubt" that the Cambrian Explosion required the sudden evolution of thousands of new protein-coding genes, who was the developmental biologist he ran that by to make sure he was correct regarding current understanding of the genetic basis of alteration in body plans?

Wortfish wrote:

Shrunk wrote:
Besides which, that's not what I'm talking about. When creationists publish their "research" ( ), do they typically have it reviewed by established experts in the relevant fields? For instance, when Stephen Meyer claimed in "Darwin's Doubt" that the Cambrian Explosion required the sudden evolution of thousands of new protein-coding genes, who was the developmental biologist he ran that by to make sure he was correct regarding current understanding of the genetic basis of alteration in body plans?

He presumably read the literature.

Wortfish wrote: The fact is, though, that creationist objections do induce evolutionary biologists to try and solve the big outstanding problems with their theory.

Wortfish wrote:

Shrunk wrote:
Besides which, that's not what I'm talking about. When creationists publish their "research" ( ), do they typically have it reviewed by established experts in the relevant fields? For instance, when Stephen Meyer claimed in "Darwin's Doubt" that the Cambrian Explosion required the sudden evolution of thousands of new protein-coding genes, who was the developmental biologist he ran that by to make sure he was correct regarding current understanding of the genetic basis of alteration in body plans?

He presumably read the literature.

The fact is, though, that creationist objections do induce evolutionary biologists to try and solve the big outstanding problems with their theory.

Wortfish wrote:
He presumably read the literature. The fact is, though, that creationist objections do induce evolutionary biologists to try and solve the big outstanding problems with their theory.

Rumraket wrote:
Yeah one of the big issues with creationists is that they confuse how-questions with whether-questions.

There are many unsolved how-questions in biology. How did the translation system evolve? RNA-worlds vs metabolism or proteins-first? How did the first proteins and protein domains evolve? How did all the different eukaryotic features like organelles, the nucleus, endosymbionts and so on evolve? How did sex evolve? Multicellularity? etc. etc.

All of these are questions for which no hard consensus has emerged yet. Creationists think this means that evolution cannot answer these questions. So they take them as whether-questions. They think the question is whether the translation system evolved? Whether the first protein domains evolved? Whether eukaryotes evolved?

The issue isn't that evolution can't explain these different entities, at least in principle, the issue is the kind of data we have does not allow us to make strong conclusions on the matter. We need more data and more experiments. There is actually little doubt THAT they evolved, the question is HOW. What were the selective pressures? What were the ancestral states like? What came first, A or B? And so on.

There is enough data to show beyond rational doubt THAT they evolved (there are so many shared commonalities that their gradual evolution and shared ancestry through descent with modification is an inescapable conclusion), but there isn't enough data to show all of the interesting details.

Just A Theory wrote:

Rumraket wrote:
Yeah one of the big issues with creationists is that they confuse how-questions with whether-questions.

There are many unsolved how-questions in biology. How did the translation system evolve? RNA-worlds vs metabolism or proteins-first? How did the first proteins and protein domains evolve? How did all the different eukaryotic features like organelles, the nucleus, endosymbionts and so on evolve? How did sex evolve? Multicellularity? etc. etc.

All of these are questions for which no hard consensus has emerged yet. Creationists think this means that evolution cannot answer these questions. So they take them as whether-questions. They think the question is whether the translation system evolved? Whether the first protein domains evolved? Whether eukaryotes evolved?

The issue isn't that evolution can't explain these different entities, at least in principle, the issue is the kind of data we have does not allow us to make strong conclusions on the matter. We need more data and more experiments. There is actually little doubt THAT they evolved, the question is HOW. What were the selective pressures? What were the ancestral states like? What came first, A or B? And so on.

There is enough data to show beyond rational doubt THAT they evolved (there are so many shared commonalities that their gradual evolution and shared ancestry through descent with modification is an inescapable conclusion), but there isn't enough data to show all of the interesting details.

The other thing is that the "how" questions are actually "how could" and not "how did". It's impossible to definitively know how life did evolve on this planet without having a time machine to go back and observe. Even if we somehow did manage to make life in a laboratory, that says nothing about how life on our planet did evolve but everything about how it could have evolved.

Unfortunately, creationists want the answer to "how did" because religious doctrine only deals in certainties. The answer to "how could" is not interesting to them because it's not a certainty, just one likely possibility. That's why you get them so hung up on requiring absolute proof and so concerned with even the most tiny flaws in a scientific theory or hypothesis.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Just A Theory wrote:

Rumraket wrote:
Yeah one of the big issues with creationists is that they confuse how-questions with whether-questions.

There are many unsolved how-questions in biology. How did the translation system evolve? RNA-worlds vs metabolism or proteins-first? How did the first proteins and protein domains evolve? How did all the different eukaryotic features like organelles, the nucleus, endosymbionts and so on evolve? How did sex evolve? Multicellularity? etc. etc.

All of these are questions for which no hard consensus has emerged yet. Creationists think this means that evolution cannot answer these questions. So they take them as whether-questions. They think the question is whether the translation system evolved? Whether the first protein domains evolved? Whether eukaryotes evolved?

The issue isn't that evolution can't explain these different entities, at least in principle, the issue is the kind of data we have does not allow us to make strong conclusions on the matter. We need more data and more experiments. There is actually little doubt THAT they evolved, the question is HOW. What were the selective pressures? What were the ancestral states like? What came first, A or B? And so on.

There is enough data to show beyond rational doubt THAT they evolved (there are so many shared commonalities that their gradual evolution and shared ancestry through descent with modification is an inescapable conclusion), but there isn't enough data to show all of the interesting details.

The other thing is that the "how" questions are actually "how could" and not "how did". It's impossible to definitively know how life did evolve on this planet without having a time machine to go back and observe. Even if we somehow did manage to make life in a laboratory, that says nothing about how life on our planet did evolve but everything about how it could have evolved.

Unfortunately, creationists want the answer to "how did" because religious doctrine only deals in certainties. The answer to "how could" is not interesting to them because it's not a certainty, just one likely possibility. That's why you get them so hung up on requiring absolute proof and so concerned with even the most tiny flaws in a scientific theory or hypothesis.

Another big problem with creationists is they keep insisting on a 'why' question. As if there must be some intelligent plan behind the universe and it cannot just be.

DavidMcC wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Just A Theory wrote:

Rumraket wrote:
Yeah one of the big issues with creationists is that they confuse how-questions with whether-questions.

There are many unsolved how-questions in biology. How did the translation system evolve? RNA-worlds vs metabolism or proteins-first? How did the first proteins and protein domains evolve? How did all the different eukaryotic features like organelles, the nucleus, endosymbionts and so on evolve? How did sex evolve? Multicellularity? etc. etc.

All of these are questions for which no hard consensus has emerged yet. Creationists think this means that evolution cannot answer these questions. So they take them as whether-questions. They think the question is whether the translation system evolved? Whether the first protein domains evolved? Whether eukaryotes evolved?

The issue isn't that evolution can't explain these different entities, at least in principle, the issue is the kind of data we have does not allow us to make strong conclusions on the matter. We need more data and more experiments. There is actually little doubt THAT they evolved, the question is HOW. What were the selective pressures? What were the ancestral states like? What came first, A or B? And so on.

There is enough data to show beyond rational doubt THAT they evolved (there are so many shared commonalities that their gradual evolution and shared ancestry through descent with modification is an inescapable conclusion), but there isn't enough data to show all of the interesting details.

The other thing is that the "how" questions are actually "how could" and not "how did". It's impossible to definitively know how life did evolve on this planet without having a time machine to go back and observe. Even if we somehow did manage to make life in a laboratory, that says nothing about how life on our planet did evolve but everything about how it could have evolved.

Unfortunately, creationists want the answer to "how did" because religious doctrine only deals in certainties. The answer to "how could" is not interesting to them because it's not a certainty, just one likely possibility. That's why you get them so hung up on requiring absolute proof and so concerned with even the most tiny flaws in a scientific theory or hypothesis.

Another big problem with creationists is they keep insisting on a 'why' question. As if there must be some intelligent plan behind the universe and it cannot just be.

A. There are two basic meanings of "why": "what was the cause?" and "what for?". You are obviously ignoring the former in favour of the latter.

DavidMcC wrote: Still, you're in good company, because Richard Dawkins made the same oversight, years ago. Perhaps you even got it from him.

DavidMcC wrote:
Obviously, the universe isn't "for" anything.

DavidMcC wrote:However, it is scientificlly absurd to argue that it always existed (a mistake that some astronomers continue to turn a blind eye to, perhaps because they mistakenly think that it would involve a god to be otherwise).

DavidMcC wrote:Others think that it was a case of something from nothing when it was created in a "big bang", which is equally absurd.

DavidMcC wrote:This is why I prefer my own cosmology, in which the "big bang" was from the collapse of a massive body (almost certainly one of many) within the "mother universe" (itself formed in a "very big bang", but directly from the proposed hyperspace continuum, under the law of quatum gravity.
The reason our own universe cannot have formed that way is the lack of synmetry in the laws of physics, as well as various other factors, discussed in the LQG thread (pp 6 & 7).

DavidMcC wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Just A Theory wrote:
The other thing is that the "how" questions are actually "how could" and not "how did". It's impossible to definitively know how life did evolve on this planet without having a time machine to go back and observe. Even if we somehow did manage to make life in a laboratory, that says nothing about how life on our planet did evolve but everything about how it could have evolved.

Unfortunately, creationists want the answer to "how did" because religious doctrine only deals in certainties. The answer to "how could" is not interesting to them because it's not a certainty, just one likely possibility. That's why you get them so hung up on requiring absolute proof and so concerned with even the most tiny flaws in a scientific theory or hypothesis.

Another big problem with creationists is they keep insisting on a 'why' question. As if there must be some intelligent plan behind the universe and it cannot just be.

A. There are two basic meanings of "why": "what was the cause?" and "what for?". You are obviously ignoring the former in favour of the latter. Still, you're in good company, because Richard Dawkins made the same oversight, years ago. Perhaps you even got it from him.

Obviously, the universe isn't "for" anything. However, it is scientificlly absurd to argue that it always existed (a mistake that some astronomers continue to turn a blind eye to, perhaps because they mistakenly think that it would involve a god to be otherwise).

Others think that it was a case of something from nothing when it was created in a "big bang", which is equally absurd. This is why I prefer my own cosmology, in which the "big bang" was from the collapse of a massive body (almost certainly one of many) within the "mother universe" (itself formed in a "very big bang", but directly from the proposed hyperspace continuum, under the law of quatum gravity.
The reason our own universe cannot have formed that way is the lack of synmetry in the laws of physics, as well as various other factors, discussed in the LQG thread (pp 6 & 7).

Just A Theory wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Just A Theory wrote:
The other thing is that the "how" questions are actually "how could" and not "how did". It's impossible to definitively know how life did evolve on this planet without having a time machine to go back and observe. Even if we somehow did manage to make life in a laboratory, that says nothing about how life on our planet did evolve but everything about how it could have evolved.

Unfortunately, creationists want the answer to "how did" because religious doctrine only deals in certainties. The answer to "how could" is not interesting to them because it's not a certainty, just one likely possibility. That's why you get them so hung up on requiring absolute proof and so concerned with even the most tiny flaws in a scientific theory or hypothesis.

Another big problem with creationists is they keep insisting on a 'why' question. As if there must be some intelligent plan behind the universe and it cannot just be.

A. There are two basic meanings of "why": "what was the cause?" and "what for?". You are obviously ignoring the former in favour of the latter. Still, you're in good company, because Richard Dawkins made the same oversight, years ago. Perhaps you even got it from him.

The former definition of 'why' ("what was the cause?") was addressed in my post. It is functionally equivalent to asking "how did" which reflects a need for certainty which, absent a time machine, cannot be achieved for events in the deep past.

It also fundamentally assumes that there is a cause for everything lest the question lead to infinite regression halted only by the assertion that there must have been a First Cause (so beloved by creationists).

At some point it's OK to say "I don't know" or "We don't know yet". In scientific circles, this is seen as a virtue and a spur for further research. In creationist circles, those statements are an increasingly small place within which to shoehorn their god.

Obviously, the universe isn't "for" anything. However, it is scientificlly absurd to argue that it always existed (a mistake that some astronomers continue to turn a blind eye to, perhaps because they mistakenly think that it would involve a god to be otherwise).

I heartily recommend you read the book "The Arrow of Time" by Sean Carroll which addresses precisely the statement that you have made above. In the book, a possible solution is to examine the postulated heat death of the universe which bears striking similarities to a vast Boltzmann gas. Given sufficient time, an ideal gas can assume highly implausible configurations and a static, unchanging universe certainly has that time. That is, the universe we observe could possibly be a statistical aberration in an otherwise unchanging low energy state.

Worth a thought anyway.

Others think that it was a case of something from nothing when it was created in a "big bang", which is equally absurd. This is why I prefer my own cosmology, in which the "big bang" was from the collapse of a massive body (almost certainly one of many) within the "mother universe" (itself formed in a "very big bang", but directly from the proposed hyperspace continuum, under the law of quatum gravity.
The reason our own universe cannot have formed that way is the lack of synmetry in the laws of physics, as well as various other factors, discussed in the LQG thread (pp 6 & 7).

You are, of course, welcome to propose any cosmology you prefer. There's at least as little evidence for yours as there is for any others

DavidMcC wrote:

Just A Theory wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Another big problem with creationists is they keep insisting on a 'why' question. As if there must be some intelligent plan behind the universe and it cannot just be.

A. There are two basic meanings of "why": "what was the cause?" and "what for?". You are obviously ignoring the former in favour of the latter. Still, you're in good company, because Richard Dawkins made the same oversight, years ago. Perhaps you even got it from him.

The former definition of 'why' ("what was the cause?") was addressed in my post. It is functionally equivalent to asking "how did" which reflects a need for certainty which, absent a time machine, cannot be achieved for events in the deep past.

It also fundamentally assumes that there is a cause for everything lest the question lead to infinite regression halted only by the assertion that there must have been a First Cause (so beloved by creationists).

At some point it's OK to say "I don't know" or "We don't know yet". In scientific circles, this is seen as a virtue and a spur for further research. In creationist circles, those statements are an increasingly small place within which to shoehorn their god.

Obviously, the universe isn't "for" anything. However, it is scientificlly absurd to argue that it always existed (a mistake that some astronomers continue to turn a blind eye to, perhaps because they mistakenly think that it would involve a god to be otherwise).

I heartily recommend you read the book "The Arrow of Time" by Sean Carroll which addresses precisely the statement that you have made above. In the book, a possible solution is to examine the postulated heat death of the universe which bears striking similarities to a vast Boltzmann gas. Given sufficient time, an ideal gas can assume highly implausible configurations and a static, unchanging universe certainly has that time. That is, the universe we observe could possibly be a statistical aberration in an otherwise unchanging low energy state.

Worth a thought anyway.

Others think that it was a case of something from nothing when it was created in a "big bang", which is equally absurd. This is why I prefer my own cosmology, in which the "big bang" was from the collapse of a massive body (almost certainly one of many) within the "mother universe" (itself formed in a "very big bang", but directly from the proposed hyperspace continuum, under the law of quatum gravity.
The reason our own universe cannot have formed that way is the lack of synmetry in the laws of physics, as well as various other factors, discussed in the LQG thread (pp 6 & 7).

You are, of course, welcome to propose any cosmology you prefer. There's at least as little evidence for yours as there is for any others

Actually, far from "at least as little" there is actualy more reason to accept my cosmology over others, because they fail to make sense of any of the experimental evidence about the universe. The stand-alone universe simply can't be correct - it's an irrational model, that's no better than goddidit!

DavidMcC wrote:

Just A Theory wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Another big problem with creationists is they keep insisting on a 'why' question. As if there must be some intelligent plan behind the universe and it cannot just be.

A. There are two basic meanings of "why": "what was the cause?" and "what for?". You are obviously ignoring the former in favour of the latter. Still, you're in good company, because Richard Dawkins made the same oversight, years ago. Perhaps you even got it from him.

The former definition of 'why' ("what was the cause?") was addressed in my post. It is functionally equivalent to asking "how did" which reflects a need for certainty which, absent a time machine, cannot be achieved for events in the deep past.

It also fundamentally assumes that there is a cause for everything lest the question lead to infinite regression halted only by the assertion that there must have been a First Cause (so beloved by creationists).

At some point it's OK to say "I don't know" or "We don't know yet". In scientific circles, this is seen as a virtue and a spur for further research. In creationist circles, those statements are an increasingly small place within which to shoehorn their god.

Obviously, the universe isn't "for" anything. However, it is scientificlly absurd to argue that it always existed (a mistake that some astronomers continue to turn a blind eye to, perhaps because they mistakenly think that it would involve a god to be otherwise).

I heartily recommend you read the book "The Arrow of Time" by Sean Carroll which addresses precisely the statement that you have made above. In the book, a possible solution is to examine the postulated heat death of the universe which bears striking similarities to a vast Boltzmann gas. Given sufficient time, an ideal gas can assume highly implausible configurations and a static, unchanging universe certainly has that time. That is, the universe we observe could possibly be a statistical aberration in an otherwise unchanging low energy state.

Worth a thought anyway.

Others think that it was a case of something from nothing when it was created in a "big bang", which is equally absurd. This is why I prefer my own cosmology, in which the "big bang" was from the collapse of a massive body (almost certainly one of many) within the "mother universe" (itself formed in a "very big bang", but directly from the proposed hyperspace continuum, under the law of quatum gravity.
The reason our own universe cannot have formed that way is the lack of synmetry in the laws of physics, as well as various other factors, discussed in the LQG thread (pp 6 & 7).

You are, of course, welcome to propose any cosmology you prefer. There's at least as little evidence for yours as there is for any others

Actually, far from "at least as little" there is actualy more reason to accept my cosmology over others, because they fail to make sense of any of the experimental evidence about the universe. The stand-alone universe simply can't be correct - it's an irrational model.

Just A Theory wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Just A Theory wrote:
The other thing is that the "how" questions are actually "how could" and not "how did". It's impossible to definitively know how life did evolve on this planet without having a time machine to go back and observe. Even if we somehow did manage to make life in a laboratory, that says nothing about how life on our planet did evolve but everything about how it could have evolved.

Unfortunately, creationists want the answer to "how did" because religious doctrine only deals in certainties. The answer to "how could" is not interesting to them because it's not a certainty, just one likely possibility. That's why you get them so hung up on requiring absolute proof and so concerned with even the most tiny flaws in a scientific theory or hypothesis.

Another big problem with creationists is they keep insisting on a 'why' question. As if there must be some intelligent plan behind the universe and it cannot just be.

A. There are two basic meanings of "why": "what was the cause?" and "what for?". You are obviously ignoring the former in favour of the latter. Still, you're in good company, because Richard Dawkins made the same oversight, years ago. Perhaps you even got it from him.

The former definition of 'why' ("what was the cause?") was addressed in my post. It is functionally equivalent to asking "how did" which reflects a need for certainty which, absent a time machine, cannot be achieved for events in the deep past.

It also fundamentally assumes that there is a cause for everything lest the question lead to infinite regression halted only by the assertion that there must have been a First Cause (so beloved by creationists).

At some point it's OK to say "I don't know" or "We don't know yet". In scientific circles, this is seen as a virtue and a spur for further research. In creationist circles, those statements are an increasingly small place within which to shoehorn their god.

Obviously, the universe isn't "for" anything. However, it is scientificlly absurd to argue that it always existed (a mistake that some astronomers continue to turn a blind eye to, perhaps because they mistakenly think that it would involve a god to be otherwise).

I heartily recommend you read the book "The Arrow of Time" by Sean Carroll which addresses precisely the statement that you have made above. In the book, a possible solution is to examine the postulated heat death of the universe which bears striking similarities to a vast Boltzmann gas. Given sufficient time, an ideal gas can assume highly implausible configurations and a static, unchanging universe certainly has that time. That is, the universe we observe could possibly be a statistical aberration in an otherwise unchanging low energy state.

Worth a thought anyway.

Others think that it was a case of something from nothing when it was created in a "big bang", which is equally absurd. This is why I prefer my own cosmology, in which the "big bang" was from the collapse of a massive body (almost certainly one of many) within the "mother universe" (itself formed in a "very big bang", but directly from the proposed hyperspace continuum, under the law of quatum gravity.
The reason our own universe cannot have formed that way is the lack of synmetry in the laws of physics, as well as various other factors, discussed in the LQG thread (pp 6 & 7).

You are, of course, welcome to propose any cosmology you prefer. There's at least as little evidence for yours as there is for any others