Where is the conservative outrage over this expense?

[sjt18]

Of course I do. But all life is not necessarily getting more and more complex.

Then why did you object? I didn't suggest that evolution said it was a uniform ascension. However evolution does in fact require alot of added information without a sufficient mechanism to supply it.

You may not like my premise but I have certainly provided a source for the information and an observed process for how things got to where they are.

What is your Biblical explanation for "Lucy"?

Extinct ape. I don't know if you are aware but even those on your side are very divided over whether AA lived in the trees or on the ground AND whether ground locomotion was on all fours or bipedal.

Wow. The fossil record is all just a big goof. And fits in a pickup truck. Okay.

Nope. Just the actual fossils used in the supposed human ancestry. You can check if you don't believe me.

And no, the actual fossil record is what it is. Fossils are frequently found in the wrong order... fossils are found in the wrong strata. Some are found barely under the surface when evolution says the species disappeared millions of years ago. It certainly didn't help your case when soft tissue was found in a T Rex bone a few years ago... Oddly that didn't make the cover of Time or Newsweek. The explanation your side sells simply is NOT as clean and straight forward as what they provide for public consumption.

And I haven't even started with specific cases of intentional dishonesty. What I've criticized so far are examples of the theory dictaing how the evidence is sorted, filtered, and interpretted.

Why would a divine being create things just to have them go extinct with no descendants, before his sentient creation even entered the picture?

What requires that He did that? You are making assumptions that a) I have not claimed and b) are not facts in evidence. You treat the evolutionary timeframe as if it is fact. EVERY method used to date natural history on earth by evolutionists involves assumptions. Those assumptions favor uniformatarian models when convenient and disfavors them when convenient. In all cases, the theory validates the ages rather than allowing the ages to independently validate the theory.

As I mentioned earlier, I believe that the world is probably older than 6000 but nowhere near the ages evolutionists claim.

Why is there no mention of any of this in the story of Creation?

I'm not sure what "this" you are referring to. I think what I've said while not explicit in the text is consistent with it.

The Bible says that God created a pristine, perfect world. I imagine that would include the genomes of the animals that were created. Depending on the time that elapsed prior to the fall of man and the corruption of the created order, there could have been an incredibly diverse population of animals on earth... masses of them.

According to the Bible, man's sin brought corruption not only to him but to all of creation. Decay ensued... and again, I would imagine that would include the genomes. That is consistent with the idea of genetic information being either lost or corrupted but not increased over the span of time.

 

[IPorange]

Your responses don't even jive together. You say "Lucy" is an extinct ape, but then say you haven't claimed that a creator created dead end species. So who is "Lucy's" descendant?


Your claiming of giving a source is humorous, given the unending and overwhelming list of sources I could give for evolution.

Much of what you state is complete conjecture, with no observed evidence. I know you levy that charge at evolution, but it just isn't true. If you want me to provide sources, I would happily point you to any mainstream science institution.

Your basis for not believing in fossils is steeped in ignorance. You realize the limestone of East Tennessee and Kentucky is the remnants of an ocean millions of years ago? The fact that it is now on the surface doesn't make it not so. There are constant forces of erosion, uplift, folding, etc. enacting on the surface of the Earth, each different at different places and at different times.

I had heard of the T. Rex soft tissue. It was actually big news, and not covered up by some vast conspiracy as you imply.

 

[sjt18]

Natural selection means from the pressures of the environment alone, with no conscious input.

That is a metaphysical assumption not a scientific fact. I tend to believe that natural selection is a system that works without direct action by God. However I also believe that it works because He created animals with the ability to adapt.

You said you believed that God was behind these mutations, changes, and deletions

Behind them, yes. However I would call them providential and not direct acts of God. Creation would be a direct act.

(which you also said couldn't have led to the changes necessary for speciation, but I guess you are assuming God magically did it faster when we weren't looking)--

You must have badly, badly misunderstood my post or else I very poorly communicated it. I said or at least intended to that God had created the first animals directly with very, very robust genomes... able to express a wider range of traits than their descendants. That original coding has progressively been corrupted by mutations and deletions under the pressures of natural selection.

The net result has been a loss of the original pristine and robust genome... not a building up from something simpler.

Your proposal is that a "code" can have defects or even deletions repeatedly that end up making it not only more functional but into something superior to the original both in complexity and scope of ability. That notion is counter-intuitive for a reason... It is not what we observe in the real world.

that's not natural selection then, it's artificial selection just as much as when we breed a wolf into a German Shepherd.

IIRC, there's general agreement (yes even with creationists) that all canines are descended from a wolf like animal. My proposal is the information was in that original kind of canine and that the KNOWN and OBSERVED processes of mutation and deletion produced the species we now see.

We are NOT disagreeing on natural selection or what it does. We are disagreeing about where the genetic information that NS acts on comes from.

 

[IPorange]

It just seems like you have inserted God in all the gaps of chance. Which is counter to your claim of not subscribing to the "God in the gaps" way of thinking.

 

[sjt18]

It just seems like you have inserted God in all the gaps of chance. Which is counter to your claim of not subscribing to the "God in the gaps" way of thinking.

I don't believe I am because I am allowing for future discovery to fill in those gaps.

How is it exactly that "God in the gaps" is objectionable but "materialism in the gaps" is not? You put faith in the notion that an answer will or at least "could" be found for every question about the natural universe and that it would ALWAYS be one that conformed to your metaphysical presuppositions.

I would LOVE for you to accept a different philosophical premise then follow that to God... but that really isn't what I'm asking for. All I am really asking for is that you acknowledge that ultimately what you will accept as a valid presupposition is based on a philosophical assumption that you cannot prove.

I am NOT neutral and am NOT pretending to be. You aren't neutral either but would probably like to pretend that you are.

There are three fundamental questions answered by one's philosophical beliefs: metaphysics, epistomolgy, and ethics. I believe dualism and specifically biblical Christianity provides the best framework for understanding human experience.

Am I looking for ways the evidence can be explained with respect to my philosophical presuppositions? Of course... and so are you and everyone else.

 

[sjt18]

Your responses don't even jive together. You say "Lucy" is an extinct ape, but then say you haven't claimed that a creator created dead end species. So who is "Lucy's" descendant?

I didn't say that God never created species that went extinct. I certainly didn't say that none of the descending lines from the original kinds of animals went extinct. The misunderstanding here is completely yours. I believe extinction is a very good but indirect proof for what I've suggested. When a species reaches a point where mutations and deletions "fix" it to an environment... then that environment changes... they go extinct.

Death according to biblical Christianity is a product of man's disobedience and fall. Since that time the fossil record suggests there have been many, many extinctions.

Your claiming of giving a source is humorous, given the unending and overwhelming list of sources I could give for evolution.

I'm not sure what this is in response to but consensus has NEVER been a good way of doing science. Consensus inhibits science by forcing everyone to stay "in the box".

Much of what you state is complete conjecture, with no observed evidence. I know you levy that charge at evolution, but it just isn't true.

You can't have it both ways because it is the same evidence. The direct evidence is not in question. The interpretations that are ultimately guided by philosophical presuppositions are in question.

Most of what you've apparently swallowed hook, line, and sinker concerning evolution is "complete conjecture".

If you want me to provide sources, I would happily point you to any mainstream science institution.

Sources for what? It is rare that a "scientist" even thinks about the philosophical assumptions they are obeying when working with ToE. Some may not even know. It is completely reasonable to assume that most of them are "nuts and bolts" types of folks who do not think philosophy has any bearing on what they're doing.

The great "thinkers" in evolution are keenly aware of it. Hawking, Sagan, Dawkins are names many would recognize... you even parroted Sagan's metaphysical view earlier with a "the universe is all there is" statement. To paraphrase, he said: the universe is all there is, was, or ever will be".... meaning of course the physical universe.

Your basis for not believing in fossils is steeped in ignorance.

Who said I didn't believe in fossils? I simply do not believe in the evolutionists' explanations for them.

You realize the limestone of East Tennessee and Kentucky is the remnants of an ocean millions of years ago?

Really? You were there? Someone from that time wrote a book?

Sarcasm aside... are you really suggesting that if it were inconvenient to the story of evolution that there is NO other explanation?

The creation of limestone like all other sedimentary rocks is a function of time, pressure, and heat. All are known to vary in natural formations as we watch them occur. Because it suits them, evolutionists have chosen time as the fixed part of the equation... but it does not have to be.

There are constant forces of erosion, uplift, folding, etc. enacting on the surface of the Earth, each different at different places and at different times.

Constant is probably a poor choice of words. Persistent may be a tad better. We simply do not KNOW if those forces have been "constant" unless they were recorded by an observer. If they weren't then we make assumptions and try to provide reasonable explanations.

I had heard of the T. Rex soft tissue. It was actually big news, and not covered up by some vast conspiracy as you imply.

It did make news in some science circles but I don't recall the headlines in Time, Newsweek, ABC, NBC, etc asking how a 63 million year old partially fossilized bone could have soft tissue in it when all the soft tissue should have been gone in a very short period of time.

I don't recall the popular media covering the mistake concerning Lucy's foot... in fact, I believe that the American Museum of Natural History continued to depict AA with human-like feet long after the mistake was known. Think of it... all of those school children walking away with false impressions...

Leading into... What do you think of Haeckel's drawings?

 

[IPorange]

I don't see how not inserting God into every flip of the coin is assuming something. I don't believe in a god(s) because there is absolutely no evidence of one. I believe in chance, because I've flipped coins and seen it come up both heads and tails. That's not me projecting a "belief" or making a leap of faith. It's assuming nothing.


One of the tenants of science is being able to reproduce results. That's where the whole "consensus" concept comes in. Is that conclusion supportable by reproducible results? It's not putting science in a box, so much as giving it boundaries that give it structure to be an empirical discipline.

If the basic assumptions I make during a day, like that my car will start or that the Sun will come up, qualify as making assumptions or having faith, so be it. It takes a lot more faith to believe in God. Ask any preacher. Your argument seems to be more of a "shadow of doubt" in the observable universe and phenomena around us, to try and put all belief structures on equal footing.

Funny you should mention Dawkins. [creationists] "don't mind being beaten in an argument. What matters is that we give them recognition by bothering to argue with them in public."

Haeckel's drawings were inaccurate. What is there to think?

 

[sjt18]

I don't see how not inserting God into every flip of the coin is assuming something.

If the opposite of something is not falsifiable then the thing itself is not falsifiable. You assume that there is no purpose in it which is no more falsifiable than the notion that there is.

I don't believe in a god(s) because there is absolutely no evidence of one.

I do not believe in chance because there is absolutely no evidence that it exists.

I believe in chance, because I've flipped coins and seen it come up both heads and tails.

I believe in providence because I have flipped coins and seen it come up both heads and tails... further I believe in God because the law of probability which cannot be explained by purely naturalistic means rightly predicts that an infinite number of tosses will produce an equal number of heads and tails.

That's not me projecting a "belief" or making a leap of faith. It's assuming nothing.

As I have very easily demonstrated... you are very much making an assumption. Assuming no purpose is every bit as much an un-scientific, biased assumption as assuming purpose.

Or, if you will, "assuming nothing" is an assumption that "assuming nothing" is the right answer to the question. You cannot prove that "assuming nothing" is the correct approach.

One of the tenants of science is being able to reproduce results.

Agreed. I have proposed a means for speciation based on a robust original genome that can and has been reproduced. Evolutionary scientists have speculated of a mechanism that produces the required novel coding needed for ascending complexity. That process has never been observed or reproduced in a lab... it gets even worse if we begin a discussion of abiogenesis.

That's where the whole "consensus" concept comes in. Is that conclusion supportable by reproducible results?

What about when the consensus is just to accept a story that explains the evidence and arbitrarily excludes other explanations because "chance" is preferred over "providence" when neither can be proven by reproducible experimentation?

It's not putting science in a box, so much as giving it boundaries that give it structure to be an empirical discipline.

There is nothing empirical about saying that only chance can explain why things happen. That is a philosophical position, not a scientific one.

If the basic assumptions I make during a day, like that my car will start or that the Sun will come up, qualify as making assumptions or having faith, so be it. It takes a lot more faith to believe in God.

I completely disagree. I find faith in an Intelligent cause for things with order and consistency to be far more compelling than "chance".... and we haven't even touched on epistomology or ethics yet.

Ask any preacher. Your argument seems to be more of a "shadow of doubt" in the observable universe and phenomena around us, to try and put all belief structures on equal footing.

They aren't on equal footing. In spite of the strength you think evolution has, your functional philosophy... the one you deny you even have... is the weakest of all. It must borrow from the others to have a meaning explanation of human experience in the realm of ethics or nature of knowledge/knowing.

Funny you should mention Dawkins. [creationists] "don't mind being beaten in an argument. What matters is that we give them recognition by bothering to argue with them in public."

Right coming from a guy who has no hesitation in admitting the very things that I've been trying to get you to acknowledge.

He certainly wouldn't be the first to avoid a meaningful, substanative debate by an arrogant wave of the hand.

Haeckel's drawings were inaccurate. What is there to think?

Well... why would the science education establishment allow them to be published in grade school science books for years after they were disproven? And they weren't just inaccurate, many believe that the good German Dr knew that he had operated on the evidence.

Interestingly enough, Eugenie Scott (Director of the National Center for Science Education) was confronted with this info. She agreed they were false but insisted that they were OK in textbooks since they taught an important point.

What point might that be? What "point" is rightly taught in "science" by a lie?

Could it be the same point that Piltdown man taught? Maybe the same point that keeping human feet on AA taught?

 

[sjt18]

Interesting thing I just noticed... why would Dawkins so fervently oppose the teaching of creation or ID along side evolution if he were really that confident? Shouldn't education be about encouraging the student to challenge accepted ideas? Shouldn't a vital part be to learn to compare and contrast things then make evaluations?

If the debate is really that embarrassingly one sided, why would you avoid having it? Would it not make far more sense to publicly discredit false ideas especially since the vast majority of Americans believe in some form of creation even after close to 100 years of getting only one option in public school?

 

[IPorange]

It's becoming painfully obvious you view everything in a very spiritual way (apparently evenly a coin flip). I see no way we can have a meaningful conversation involving science.

Sure, if you boil everything down to a level of total assumption and uncertainty, I can see why it would not only be comforting for there to be a magical being somewhere behind the curtain, but also necessary. I'm glad you've put those philosophy classes to good use.

You must marvel at the Being that created bacne and the need to defecate. What mysterious ways! Of course, I am just assuming those things exist. Who's to say those aren't just an assumption based on memories a benevolent creator has given me, that haven't ever occurred? Maybe I just started existing 30 seconds ago!

You've been having a conversation with yourself for the past several responses. I'm not going to keep engaging someone only to be responded to phrase-by-phrase, and told what my answer is and what I "really mean." I had a feeling of how this would go when you first mentioned "epitemology," the ultimate "plausible doubt" card.

Enjoy the bright world of Intelligent design/dark world of sinister Scientific community conspiracy.

 

[IPorange]

If the debate is really that embarrassingly one sided, why would you avoid having it? Would it not make far more sense to publicly discredit false ideas especially since the vast majority of Americans believe in some form of creation even after close to 100 years of getting only one option in public school?

One can't have a rational discussion about ideas when one side refuses to accept tangible facts of their opposition, but only submits philosophical responses hinging on spiritual beings that have no supporting evidence. It's two different rationales.

Wonder why the rest of the civilized world has accepted evolution, for the most part?

 

[sjt18]

It's becoming painfully obvious you view everything in a very spiritual way (apparently evenly a coin flip). I see no way we can have a meaningful conversation involving science.

No. I view everything with both material and immaterial possibilities on the table. I do not arbitrarily dismiss one or the other.

Sure, if you boil everything down to a level of total assumption and uncertainty, I can see why it would not only be comforting for there to be a magical being somewhere behind the curtain, but also necessary. I'm glad you've put those philosophy classes to good use.

Au contrare. There is nothing easier than saying "I can do what I want and answer to no one" than to consider the prerogatives of a Creator.

You must marvel at the Being that created bacne and the need to defecate. What mysterious ways!

Interesting... having your core assumptions challenged makes you argumentative. How does evolution predict defensive pride over something as intangible as an idea?

Of course, I am just assuming those things exist. Who's to say those aren't just an assumption based on memories a benevolent creator has given me, that haven't ever occurred? Maybe I just started existing 30 seconds ago!

Neither of us take those options seriously but they are worthy of discussion for the sake of exercise.

FWIW, some eastern mystics suggest that only the spiritual exists and that everything we perceive as reality is simply the creation of a collective consciousness. I do not believe that... but that view answers the questions of human experience better than the materialistic view does.

You've been having a conversation with yourself for the past several responses. I'm not going to keep engaging someone only to be responded to phrase-by-phrase, and told what my answer is and what I "really mean."

If I have misread you then please feel free to correct me. What you say has meaning and implications whether you want to consider them or not.

I had a feeling of how this would go when you first mentioned "epitemology," the ultimate "plausible doubt" card.

OK. If you can't discuss it rationally then dismiss it and act as if it is below your intelligence, right? Follow the good doctor's example, right?

Sorry if I misspelled something btw.

Enjoy the bright world of Intelligent design/dark world of sinister Scientific community conspiracy.

:lolabove::lolabove:

There's no conspiracy any more than there was a conspiracy in Columbus' day. There is simply an entrenched dogma that refuses to allow a critical look at itself.

 

[sjt18]

One can't have a rational discussion about ideas when one side refuses to accept tangible facts of their opposition, but only submits philosophical responses hinging on spiritual beings that have no supporting evidence. It's two different rationales.

Good grief! Do you really... honestly not see what you just did?

You asserted YOUR philosophical presuppositions and assumptions as matter of fact foundations for having a rational discussion... yet proudly declare that you have made none.

Do you ever wonder why such a very, very small minority of the "thinking" people in recorded history accept your view of reality? Maybe you don't because to do so requires you to borrow from another philosophy since yours can provide no reason to consider anything outside of survival.

Wonder why the rest of the civilized world has accepted evolution, for the most part?

Prove this statement.

Wonder why the overwhelming majority of even the civilized world believes in a spiritual realm and some conception of God?

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Wonder why the overwhelming majority of even the civilized world believes in a spiritual realm and some conception of God?

That's easy, people want to believe there is something better than life.....

 

[BeecherVol]

Reading the Polls on Evolution and Creationism - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

Interesting poll.

 

[IPorange]

Good grief! Do you really... honestly not see what you just did?

You asserted YOUR philosophical presuppositions and assumptions as matter of fact foundations for having a rational discussion... yet proudly declare that you have made none.

Do you ever wonder why such a very, very small minority of the "thinking" people in recorded history accept your view of reality? Maybe you don't because to do so requires you to borrow from another philosophy since yours can provide no reason to consider anything outside of survival.

I'm really having trouble seeing how you get to decide where philosophical assumptions begin... Are spellings of words a philosophical presumption? You aren't making arguments against anything less than the physical world around us. I'm not sure how I can even communicate with you without resorting to philosophy-- which is EXACTLY what you want. But this isn't about philosophy-- we were discussing evolution. So far you've only come up with "God's in the details because it's the only way," which is because YOU don't believe in chance, statistics, or whatever.

I noticed you didn't address why a creator created the need to defecate. What a weird God.


And for the record, there's quite a bit of literature about the development of human emotions, including pride. But don't misread my emotions, it's easy to do through a forum. I've been laughing at your evasive lines of rationale, selective logic, and most of all at how you back off of any argument you can't win by modifying or watering it down for your purpose and then acting smug about it.

 

[IPorange]

That's easy, people want to believe there is something better than life.....

There's been a lot of research done on the cognitive trigger that predisposes humans to superstition and belief. It's all about answering questions that are beyond our current understanding. "Where did this come from?" In a world where nearly every object we need is fashioned or made, "who made this?" We are the ultimate questioning beings, and when we get to questions we can't readily answer, we fill in the blank. With what? Why with gods, which are really just romanticized and larger-than-life versions of ourselves.

Our brains are such that we seek order and pattern out of everything we see, whether it has order or not.

 

[utman47]

There's been a lot of research done on the cognitive trigger that predisposes humans to superstition and belief. It's all about answering questions that are beyond our current understanding. "Where did this come from?" In a world where nearly every object we need is fashioned or made, "who made this?" We are the ultimate questioning beings, and when we get to questions we can't readily answer, we fill in the blank. With what? Why with gods, which are really just romanticized and larger-than-life versions of ourselves.

Our brains are such that we seek order and pattern out of everything we see, whether it has order or not.

Ok, the point of FAITH is something that cannot necessarily be seen or proven, for that matter.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[IPorange]

Ok, the point of FAITH is something that cannot necessarily be seen or proven, for that matter.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Right. But you still need SOMETHING. Which is what I was getting at.

 

[tvolsfan]

Wonder why the rest of the civilized world has accepted evolution, for the most part?

I honestly don't see evolution being such a debated topic here. I feel like the stats showing people believe in creation are a little skewed in some way. I feel the same way about stats saying 10% of the population is gay, and the numbers indicating about 40% of the population believe that the government caused 911/allowed it to happen.

 

[IPorange]

I honestly don't see evolution being such a debated topic here. I feel like the stats showing people believe in creation are a little skewed in some way. I feel the same way about stats saying 10% of the population is gay, and the numbers indicating about 40% of the population believe that the government caused 911/allowed it to happen.

I have to remind myself that this is a message board populated by mostly people who are in the South, and the South is very different from the rest of the country-- especially on matters that touch on faith.

 

[BeecherVol]

I have to remind myself that this is a message board populated by mostly people who are in the South, and the South is very different from the rest of the country-- especially on matters that touch on faith.

That was a sensitive post from you IP.

Im proud of you.:cray:

 

[sjt18]

I have to remind myself that this is a message board populated by mostly people who are in the South, and the South is very different from the rest of the country-- especially on matters that touch on faith.

I grew up in the south. I more or less assented to evolution and had reconciled it to my religious upbringing when I left. Over the past 17 years, I've only lived in the south for 2. My shift away from evolution was completed mostly while living near Seattle (pre Discovery Institute) and near Chicago.

 

[sjt18]

I'm really having trouble seeing how you get to decide where philosophical assumptions begin...

They begin at the beginning... that is self evident. You cannot even begin to have rational thought much less discussion without having some baseline "faith" about the nature of reality, the nature and extent of knowledge, and ethics.

You aren't making arguments against anything less than the physical world around us.

No. I'm arguing that just because you believe that it is all explained by materialism and a wave of your hand... does not make it so.

I'm not sure how I can even communicate with you without resorting to philosophy-- which is EXACTLY what you want.

Yes. That is all I want. Just a simple acknowledgement that you start with a philosophical assumption AND if you or someone else started with a different assumption they might not come to the same conclusions that you do.

But this isn't about philosophy-- we were discussing evolution.

Evolution IS philosophical at its core. At the very core you have the metaphysical assumptions of the materialist philosophy. From there with respect to the natural world, the thinking proceeds more or less logically. Once you make an a priori assumption about the nature of reality... your explanations of human experience will necessarily be conformed to that accepted premise.

So far you've only come up with "God's in the details because it's the only way," which is because YOU don't believe in chance, statistics, or whatever.

Chance and statistics are not the same thing. I never said I didn't believe in statistics... I did indicate that "probabilities" would not work without a "law" to govern them. You believe that came from nowhere... I believe the order in the universe both material and immaterial... has a purpose and a Creator.

I noticed you didn't address why a creator created the need to defecate. What a weird God.

Because it is part of the biological system... a very, very necessary part in a fallen and corrupt world.

And for the record, there's quite a bit of literature about the development of human emotions, including pride.

Yes. I'm probably more aware of it than you think... They just cheat so often by borrowing from other philosophical frameworks that they almost always invalidate themselves. Sort of like geneticists who believe in evolution using reverse engineering to analyze the functions of DNA that is supposedly the product of unguided natural processes.

But don't misread my emotions, it's easy to do through a forum. I've been laughing at your evasive lines of rationale, selective logic, and most of all at how you back off of any argument you can't win by modifying or watering it down for your purpose and then acting smug about it.

I am still waiting for you to argue a single point on merit. You've waved your hand. You've scoffed. You HAVE evaded admission that you start with a belief that is fundamentally "faith".

Hopefully someone who is watching is seeing that.

You never answered why if evolutionists are so confident in their ideas they are so unwilling to have them critically presented much less compared to other possibilities in the classroom.

There are probably other things you failed to answer while complaining about my answering you line by line.

 

[emainvol]

I gotta admit, you lost me days ago when you claimed that the concept of the "universe" doesn't constitute everything. By very definition it does.