‹ First  < 2 3 4 5 6 > 
 
   
 

Yale professor’s thoughts on Darwinism

 
TwoSeven1
 
Avatar
 
 
TwoSeven1
Total Posts:  364
Joined  18-12-2018
 
 
 
13 August 2019 13:17
 
Jefe - 13 August 2019 09:23 AM
TwoSeven1 - 13 August 2019 08:46 AM
Jefe - 12 August 2019 10:12 PM
TwoSeven1 - 12 August 2019 06:59 PM
Jan_CAN - 12 August 2019 05:26 PM
Jefe - 12 August 2019 04:56 PM
TwoSeven1 - 12 August 2019 04:10 PM

Now, I don’t know David Gelernter, nor do I know all of the research he’s done, his personal views, his biases, etc., but what I do know is the value of thinking independently about an argument.  I don’t believe that Evolutionists have everything firgured out in quite the way that they consistently say they do.

Maybe you would if you actually studied evolution science instead of chasing ID/Creationist fallacies.

Yup, disparaging mainstream science out of hand isn’t demonstrating ‘good’ thinking.  And to seriously consider an argument, I think one needs some idea of the author’s credibility.

Being a professor at Yale isn’t enough credibility?

Appeal to authority.
While ignoring the collective expertise of evolutionary scientists.

I was not the one to say that credibility is necessary.  Is credibility authority?  You say that I’m making an appeal to authority fallacy, while in your very next thought you make that very fallacy.

Not at all.
Referring you to bodies of evidence from several different peer reviewed disciplines =/= appeal to authority.
I can’t help you understand the difference if you’re immune to evidence that contradicts your position, however.
Within Jan’s linked article are links to several different peer reviews that refute (and contradict) the book (and bad math/probability) used by Meyer and referred to in your Yale prof’s link.

“Not at all.
Referring you to bodies of evidence from several different peer reviewed disciplines =/= appeal to authority.”  This is not what you did in your previous post.

“Within Jan’s linked article are links to several different peer reviews that refute (and contradict) the book (and bad math/probability) used by Meyer and referred to in your Yale prof’s link.”  I’m pretty sure you didn’t read the Yale professor’s article in its entirety.  Also, I am not offering a defense of Meyer’s book since I haven’t read it.

 
TwoSeven1
 
Avatar
 
 
TwoSeven1
Total Posts:  364
Joined  18-12-2018
 
 
 
13 August 2019 13:18
 
Jan_CAN - 13 August 2019 10:24 AM
TwoSeven1 - 13 August 2019 08:44 AM
Jan_CAN - 12 August 2019 08:05 PM
TwoSeven1 - 12 August 2019 06:59 PM
Jan_CAN - 12 August 2019 05:26 PM
Jefe - 12 August 2019 04:56 PM
TwoSeven1 - 12 August 2019 04:10 PM

Now, I don’t know David Gelernter, nor do I know all of the research he’s done, his personal views, his biases, etc., but what I do know is the value of thinking independently about an argument.  I don’t believe that Evolutionists have everything firgured out in quite the way that they consistently say they do.

Maybe you would if you actually studied evolution science instead of chasing ID/Creationist fallacies.

Yup, disparaging mainstream science out of hand isn’t demonstrating ‘good’ thinking.  And to seriously consider an argument, I think one needs some idea of the author’s credibility.

Being a professor at Yale isn’t enough credibility?

Nope.  A professor can claim expertise in their own (or related) field only.
And if I’m ever in need of brain surgery, I want a neurosurgeon, not a cardiologist.

“Nope.  A professor can claim expertise in their own (or related) field only.”  He didn’t claim expertise, and he doesn’t need to.  Evolutionists aren’t providing hypotheses so difficult to understand that others cannot weigh-in.

‘Evolutionists’ covers many scientific disciplines and is indeed difficult to understand if not specifically trained in the science.  What the lay/untrained person (including myself) can do is understand the general principles and discoveries by reading books and articles written by experts for the general public.  Which is what I advise you to do, though you show no indication that you want to understand the facts.

Previously you have referred to the mathematics and probabilities in regards to evolution.  What do you think the odds are that millions of reputable scientists in various fields who support the principles and general mechanisms of Darwinian evolution are wrong, and that the relatively few and basically untrained creationists/ID supporters are right?

TwoSeven1, why are you here?  Is it just to troll as has been suggested, or are you trying to convince yourself of something?  You’re not going to learn anything if you are not open to doing so, which is a shame because there are others here who you could’ve learned from.

“What do you think the odds are that millions of reputable scientists in various fields who support the principles and general mechanisms of Darwinian evolution are wrong, and that the relatively few and basically untrained creationists/ID supporters are right?”  You are arguing from your own generalization.

“TwoSeven1, why are you here?”  I have stated why I’m here in an older thread.

 
TwoSeven1
 
Avatar
 
 
TwoSeven1
Total Posts:  364
Joined  18-12-2018
 
 
 
13 August 2019 13:19
 
EN - 13 August 2019 10:47 AM
Jan_CAN - 13 August 2019 10:24 AM

TwoSeven1, why are you here?  Is it just to troll as has been suggested, or are you trying to convince yourself of something?  You’re not going to learn anything if you are not open to doing so, which is a shame because there are others here who you could’ve learned from.

He’s here to survive the onslaught as that gives him “street cred” in another context.  He has been in the crucible and, like Shadrach, et al., come out of the fire unscathed.  Or something like that.

“He’s here to survive the onslaught as that gives him ‘street cred’ in another context.”  What “street cred” is there to be had by arguing for a minority perspective against mockers?

Do you think that what the Bible says is compatible with the hypothesis of Evolution, the Big Bang, abiogenesis?

 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21924
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
13 August 2019 13:36
 
TwoSeven1 - 13 August 2019 01:19 PM

Do you think that what the Bible says is compatible with the hypothesis of Evolution, the Big Bang, abiogenesis?

Yes. It’s only if you give a hyper-literal interpretation to the first 11 chapters of Genesis that you run into a problem with science. The creation story is a hymn, it’s in symbolic language. It’s very simple to understand God as the intelligent creator of the universe, who programmed the laws of nature into reality.  Then, the universe and the earth and life itself developed/evolved according to those laws.

 
TwoSeven1
 
Avatar
 
 
TwoSeven1
Total Posts:  364
Joined  18-12-2018
 
 
 
13 August 2019 13:54
 
EN - 13 August 2019 01:36 PM
TwoSeven1 - 13 August 2019 01:19 PM

Do you think that what the Bible says is compatible with the hypothesis of Evolution, the Big Bang, abiogenesis?

Yes. It’s only if you give a hyper-literal interpretation to the first 11 chapters of Genesis that you run into a problem with science. The creation story is a hymn, it’s in symbolic language. It’s very simple to understand God as the intelligent creator of the universe, who programmed the laws of nature into reality.  Then, the universe and the earth and life itself developed/evolved according to those laws.

“The creation story is a hymn, it’s in symbolic language.”  What do you say about Jesus’ reference in Matthew 19:4?  Was he referring the Jews to symbolic meaning or to literal meaning?

 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7135
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
13 August 2019 14:40
 
TwoSeven1 - 13 August 2019 01:17 PM

“Not at all.
Referring you to bodies of evidence from several different peer reviewed disciplines =/= appeal to authority.”  This is not what you did in your previous post.

 

That is precisely whst I was referring to in my previous post.

TwoSeven1 - 13 August 2019 01:17 PM


“Within Jan’s linked article are links to several different peer reviews that refute (and contradict) the book (and bad math/probability) used by Meyer and referred to in your Yale prof’s link.”  I’m pretty sure you didn’t read the Yale professor’s article in its entirety.  Also, I am not offering a defense of Meyer’s book since I haven’t read it.

 

Strange.  I’m pretty sure I read through it several times.  He draws heavily on Meyer.  Strange that you did not know this too.  I wonder how that could be?  I mean, there are 22 references to Meyer in the article you linked.  I also find it odd that you didn’t notice that.

[ Edited: 13 August 2019 15:24 by Jefe]
 
 
TwoSeven1
 
Avatar
 
 
TwoSeven1
Total Posts:  364
Joined  18-12-2018
 
 
 
13 August 2019 15:30
 
Jefe - 13 August 2019 02:40 PM
TwoSeven1 - 13 August 2019 01:17 PM

“Not at all.
Referring you to bodies of evidence from several different peer reviewed disciplines =/= appeal to authority.”  This is not what you did in your previous post.

 

That is precisely whst I was referring to in my previous post.

TwoSeven1 - 13 August 2019 01:17 PM


“Within Jan’s linked article are links to several different peer reviews that refute (and contradict) the book (and bad math/probability) used by Meyer and referred to in your Yale prof’s link.”  I’m pretty sure you didn’t read the Yale professor’s article in its entirety.  Also, I am not offering a defense of Meyer’s book since I haven’t read it.

 

Strange.  I’m pretty sure I read through it several times.  He draws heavily on Meyer.  Strange that you did not know this too.  I wonder how that could be?  I mean, there are 22 references to Meyer in the article you linked.  I also find it odd that you didn’t notice that.

“That is precisely whst I was referring to in my previous post.”  You said: “collective expertise,” not “evidence.”  Expertise is not evidence in this case.  Expertise is an attribute of a person.  You made an appeal to authority.

“Strange that you did not know this too.”  Gelernter refers to Meyer’s work many times.  The math that Gelernter presented may have been referred to by Meyer, but Gelernter directly attributes it to Douglas Axe.

 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7135
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
13 August 2019 15:34
 
TwoSeven1 - 13 August 2019 03:30 PM

“That is precisely whst I was referring to in my previous post.”  You said: “collective expertise,” not “evidence.”  Expertise is not evidence in this case.  Expertise is an attribute of a person.  You made an appeal to authority.

You keep singing that song if it makes you happy.
I defer to the expertise of scientists in the fields of evolutionary science.  A far different thing than appealing to authority.

TwoSeven1 - 13 August 2019 03:30 PM

“Strange that you did not know this too.”  Gelernter refers to Meyer’s work many times.  The math that Gelernter presented may have been referred to by Meyer, but Gelernter directly attributes it to Douglas Axe.

Yes.  Meyer may also have drawn from Axe’s work in his book.  It wouldn’t surprise me.
The whole Discovery Institute, ID Gang like to cross reference each other a lot.
That math has been misrepresented and misunderstood by a whole gang of ID/Creationsists.  And refuted many times.

[ Edited: 13 August 2019 15:37 by Jefe]
 
 
TwoSeven1
 
Avatar
 
 
TwoSeven1
Total Posts:  364
Joined  18-12-2018
 
 
 
13 August 2019 15:48
 
Jefe - 13 August 2019 03:34 PM
TwoSeven1 - 13 August 2019 03:30 PM

“That is precisely whst I was referring to in my previous post.”  You said: “collective expertise,” not “evidence.”  Expertise is not evidence in this case.  Expertise is an attribute of a person.  You made an appeal to authority.

You keep singing that song if it makes you happy.
I defer to the expertise of scientists in the fields of evolutionary science.  A far different thing than appealing to authority.

TwoSeven1 - 13 August 2019 03:30 PM

“Strange that you did not know this too.”  Gelernter refers to Meyer’s work many times.  The math that Gelernter presented may have been referred to by Meyer, but Gelernter directly attributes it to Douglas Axe.

Yes.  Meyer may also have drawn from Axe’s work in his book.  It wouldn’t surprise me.
The whole Discovery Institute, ID Gang like to cross reference each other a lot.
That math has been misrepresented and misunderstood by a whole gang of ID/Creationsists.  And refuted many times.

“I defer to the expertise of scientists in the fields of evolutionary science.  A far different thing than appealing to authority.”  Simply deferring to someone else’s expertise is not what you’ve done.  You said that I ignore the collective expertise of scientists, and your implication is that I’m wrong because of it.  That is an appeal to authority.

 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7135
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
13 August 2019 15:54
 
TwoSeven1 - 13 August 2019 03:48 PM

“I defer to the expertise of scientists in the fields of evolutionary science.  A far different thing than appealing to authority.”  Simply deferring to someone else’s expertise is not what you’ve done.  You said that I ignore the collective expertise of scientists, and your implication is that I’m wrong because of it.  That is an appeal to authority.

Keep singing.

You are incorrect about this, however.

Appeal to Authority:
Description: Insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered. Also see the appeal to false authority.

I’m happy to offer evidence, and further point out that evidence has already been offered within this thread indicating the incorrectness of the paper linked in the original post.  Up to you to continue to chirp about this if you like.  I can refer you back to the links and descriptions provided as evidence within this thread.

Here is a link to an article that basically debunks the DI:ID interpretation of Axe’s work:
https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/01/92-second-st-fa.html

[ Edited: 13 August 2019 16:02 by Jefe]
 
 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21924
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
13 August 2019 16:03
 
TwoSeven1 - 13 August 2019 01:54 PM
EN - 13 August 2019 01:36 PM
TwoSeven1 - 13 August 2019 01:19 PM

Do you think that what the Bible says is compatible with the hypothesis of Evolution, the Big Bang, abiogenesis?

Yes. It’s only if you give a hyper-literal interpretation to the first 11 chapters of Genesis that you run into a problem with science. The creation story is a hymn, it’s in symbolic language. It’s very simple to understand God as the intelligent creator of the universe, who programmed the laws of nature into reality.  Then, the universe and the earth and life itself developed/evolved according to those laws.

“The creation story is a hymn, it’s in symbolic language.”  What do you say about Jesus’ reference in Matthew 19:4?  Was he referring the Jews to symbolic meaning or to literal meaning?

He was responding to the Pharisees’ question about the law.  They relied on the Torah and he accepted that.  He was showing them that under their interpretation of the Torah, which they considered binding, divorce was generally not allowed. Furthermore, a symbolic interpretation of the creation story does not mean that there can be no truths expressed in it.  For example, it expresses the truth that God is responsible for the creation of the universe.  The vehicle for expressing that truth, however, is a symbolic story.  Same with Adam and Eve - in God’s eyes marriage is binding, but the vehicle of expressing that reality is a metaphor.

 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15957
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
13 August 2019 19:01
 

Why does anybody here keep feeding this assholes sea lioning and trolling?

 
TwoSeven1
 
Avatar
 
 
TwoSeven1
Total Posts:  364
Joined  18-12-2018
 
 
 
14 August 2019 10:48
 
Jefe - 13 August 2019 03:54 PM
TwoSeven1 - 13 August 2019 03:48 PM

“I defer to the expertise of scientists in the fields of evolutionary science.  A far different thing than appealing to authority.”  Simply deferring to someone else’s expertise is not what you’ve done.  You said that I ignore the collective expertise of scientists, and your implication is that I’m wrong because of it.  That is an appeal to authority.

Keep singing.

You are incorrect about this, however.

Appeal to Authority:
Description: Insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered. Also see the appeal to false authority.

I’m happy to offer evidence, and further point out that evidence has already been offered within this thread indicating the incorrectness of the paper linked in the original post.  Up to you to continue to chirp about this if you like.  I can refer you back to the links and descriptions provided as evidence within this thread.

Here is a link to an article that basically debunks the DI:ID interpretation of Axe’s work:
https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/01/92-second-st-fa.html

The author of your reference makes a few interesting comments just before his summary.  I’m not sure why anyone would assume that Evolution is true if his comments are accurate.

For clarification, what is the credibility of your reference’s author?

 
TwoSeven1
 
Avatar
 
 
TwoSeven1
Total Posts:  364
Joined  18-12-2018
 
 
 
14 August 2019 10:48
 
EN - 13 August 2019 04:03 PM
TwoSeven1 - 13 August 2019 01:54 PM
EN - 13 August 2019 01:36 PM
TwoSeven1 - 13 August 2019 01:19 PM

Do you think that what the Bible says is compatible with the hypothesis of Evolution, the Big Bang, abiogenesis?

Yes. It’s only if you give a hyper-literal interpretation to the first 11 chapters of Genesis that you run into a problem with science. The creation story is a hymn, it’s in symbolic language. It’s very simple to understand God as the intelligent creator of the universe, who programmed the laws of nature into reality.  Then, the universe and the earth and life itself developed/evolved according to those laws.

“The creation story is a hymn, it’s in symbolic language.”  What do you say about Jesus’ reference in Matthew 19:4?  Was he referring the Jews to symbolic meaning or to literal meaning?

He was responding to the Pharisees’ question about the law.  They relied on the Torah and he accepted that.  He was showing them that under their interpretation of the Torah, which they considered binding, divorce was generally not allowed. Furthermore, a symbolic interpretation of the creation story does not mean that there can be no truths expressed in it.  For example, it expresses the truth that God is responsible for the creation of the universe.  The vehicle for expressing that truth, however, is a symbolic story.  Same with Adam and Eve - in God’s eyes marriage is binding, but the vehicle of expressing that reality is a metaphor.

“He was showing them that under their interpretation of the Torah, which they considered binding, divorce was generally not allowed.”  How do you account for Matthew 19:8?  It seems to me that their interpretation allowed for divorce.  What would have been the beginning point that Jesus refers to in verse 8?

 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21924
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
14 August 2019 11:46
 
TwoSeven1 - 14 August 2019 10:48 AM

How do you account for Matthew 19:8?  It seems to me that their interpretation allowed for divorce.  What would have been the beginning point that Jesus refers to in verse 8?

What I meant was that they interpreted the Torah literally.  Genesis is part of the Torah.  In Genesis, Jesus points out that God’s original intention was that marriage be binding. Moses’ allowance was an accommodation, not a reflection of the original literal meaning of the Torah. 

My point in this whole conversation is that early Genesis can also be interpreted symbolically (talking serpents, Trees of Life, etc.) even though concepts such as binding marriage can be distilled from it. It is not necessary to insist that the 7 days of creation were 7 literal days, or that God literally formed man from the dirt or woman from a rib.

 
‹ First  < 2 3 4 5 6 >