Evidence for Creationism and Against Evolution

[Rían]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
as is genetics....

Ohfergoodnesssakes!

Pardon me while I go off and have a good laugh at MYSELF ....

*walks away*
*sounds of uproarious laughter heard*
*returns with a red and rueful face*

OK, well, so I'm not as good a writer as I thought. I kinda thought I was a bit of a good writer, but seriously, GM, if you thought you had to instruct me about those things, then it's clear I'm NOT getting a big point across that I thought was pretty obvious.

Honestly, for you to write what you did, this is what you must think I'm suggesting - destroy all labs, tell everyone to go home, set up one answering machine under the listing "SCIENCE", and set up the recording to play "God did it!" when it's called.

*sigh*

OF COURSE science is based on the assumption of stable, observable natural laws! If they weren't, then we really WOULD just have to do the scenario above, except change the recording to "give it up, you fool!" (and the recording wouldn't work, anyway, without stable natural laws).

What THIS thread is talking about is creationism/evolutionism. And creationism says there is ONE, INITIAL act of divine creation, which would of course include setting up natural laws, and then things are turned loose to operate under those natural laws and also under free-will choices (subject to natural laws).

Creationism ALSO assumes observable, stable natural laws. The only difference between the two is the initial conditions. Cr. says that an intelligent, powerful God set things up, including natural laws. Ev. says there's only natural laws behind things.

And in most of those fields you mentioned, they can observe and measure things in the present.

[Rían]

And re BOP's post, where she posts some definitions of micro and macro evolution, here ....

from the "Proposed Mechanisms" part, I'll re-quote:

It is argued that, since macroevolution can not be confirmed by a controlled experiment, it cannot be considered to be part of a scientific theory. However, evolutionists counter that astronomy, geology, archaeology and the other historical sciences, like macroevolution, have to check hypotheses through natural experiments. They confirm hypotheses by finding out if they conform or fit with the physical or observational evidence and can make valid predictions. In this way, macroevolution is testable and falsifiable.

Does anyone see a problem with this?

Let me point it out.

(and btw, at least they make a distinction and call them "historical sciences". And people in these sciences do the best they can do, and good for them! But they are not equal with sciences that can experiment with things in the present, and that's just a fact! I'm sorry, and I know they try hard and really do the best they can do, but if something's in the past, it's in the past, and no amount of sincerity can change that, and there's no way to verify a hypothesis, altho there's ways to check for INDICATIONS that it's true or false.)

OK, so macroevolution (a theory dealing with what happened in the past) is testable and falsifiable. At least they said "in this way", and I hope they realize that it's not the SAME WAY as other in-the-present sciences.

Here is my theory, which is testable and falsifiable in the SAME MANNER as macroevolution is. I propose that somehow the earth got here (same starting point as macroevolution) and some goo developed in some primordial sea (favorite phrase of some people). Then a lightning bolt hit the goo and formed proteins & etc. and a one-celled thingy appeared. Then an alien from another planet zoomed over and zapped the one-celled thingy and it became a two-celled thingy. This was repeated over and over and things got more complex. Whenever the aliens felt bored, they zapped an organism and it mutated. If the mutations were advantageous, then the newly zapped things lived, else they died out. I predict that in the fossil record, there will be sudden occurances of new species, and there will be a tendency for simpler, smaller organisms to be on the bottom and more complex ones on the top. This is falsifiable if the fossil record does NOT look like this.

My point here is not to ridicule evolutionists, but to merely point out that you can SAY that a theory can be formed to be predictive and falsifiable, but if it's based on things that are NO LONGER OBSERVABLE in the present, then it's NOT in the same class as things that can be observed in the present. All it is is an educated guess, which if that's all you can do, then go ahead and good luck; but don't equate it with things that CAN be falsified with actual experiments on an EXISTING thing.

Macroevolution is simply the result of microevolution over a longer period of time. According to the modern synthesis, no distinction needs to be drawn between different kinds of evolution because all are caused by the same factors.

The part I've bolded is a huge and unjustifiable assumption, and is unproven and unproveable, IMO. As I said long ago, if you make that assumption, then perhaps one day I'll turn into a Corvette. Evolutionists can say "lots of little changes equals a big change" all they like, but that's not fair; as in the Chesterton example, lots of little steps may get you across a field, but not from tower to tower thru the air. And the jump from one-celled thingy to man is a jump thru the air.

But of course scientist are free to sincerely make their best guesses in this field (and try to find everything possible to support the idea that there's no God to whom they might be accountable for their choices) as they will NEVER be able to actually see what happens, until the day of judgement arrives, if we're allowed to see a play-back (which I hope we are). (and again, I'm talking about scientists that say there are ONLY naturalistic causes behind creation, which means there is no God behind creation.)

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Cr. says that an intelligent, powerful God set things up, including natural laws. Ev. says there's only natural laws behind things.

Not exactly because evolution is one of those natural laws. Its not about explaining creation. And its possible that evolution may have been invisibly manipulated at one point or all along. whether that is true or not is irrelevant to the concept of evolution. thats whats often fundamentally missed in your arguments. that its not really about CREATIONISM vs EVOLUTION as if they are on equal levels and its either one or the other. I think the real disagreement is more can evolution be PART of creationism and does evolution itself work.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
Not exactly because evolution is one of those natural laws.

micro is; macro ISN'T

Its not about explaining creation. And its possible that evolution may have been invisibly manipulated at one point or all along. whether that is true or not is irrelevant to the concept of evolution. thats whats often fundamentally missed in your arguments. that its not really about CREATIONISM vs EVOLUTION as if they are on equal levels and its either one or the other.

No, it's not "fundamentally missed"; I've said over and over that I'm addressing non-God-directed evolution. I don't bother with God-directed evolution, as there's no visible difference between it and NON-God-directed evolution.

I think the real disagreement is more can evolution be PART of creationism and does evolution itself work.

As far as how classic creationism is formulated, the answer is no; just like how classic evolutionism is formulated, the answer "God jumped in and did this" is not allowed. Theories HAVE to be selective; it's not a lack of open-mindedness. And there is no proof that MACROevolution, at least, works.



EDIT - IRex, I was in the middle of a massive edit when you posted - you might want to check the post above yours

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
No, it's not "fundamentally missed"; I've said over and over that I'm addressing non-God-directed evolution. I don't bother with God-directed evolution, as there's no visible difference between it and NON-God-directed evolution.

but it doesnt matter. evolution is evolution no matter whether theres a god involved or not. just as geology is geology. where as creationism by definition requires a god.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
micro is; macro ISN'T

...but you have failed to show the difference between the two. If there were some barrier to evolutionary change it should be fairly evident. If microevolution is a natural law (still really a theory, but for discussion's sake) then the limit should be testable. Just saying it can't because it can't doesn't play.

Chesterton's analogy is just that, not an actual fact. Like all analogies it fails under scrutiny. It reminds me of the old chestnut about the city fellow that stops the coutry fellow and asks for directions. He responds, "You can't get there from here!". This really means the route is complicated and the fellow doesn't know the way.

I have yet to hear the definition of "type". Are birds a single type? Are ostriches, penguins, and geese alll one type? The details of how this is set up is critical to analyzing how certain unusual species that are very similar in some ways and very different in others.

How about fish? boneless, cartilagenous, notochord, spiny, lobe-finned, lungfish. Are the types the same as the standard classifications used in science but with dotted lines betweeen things that are not allowed to be related? It just that biologists sometimes disagree about these categories so it would be very useful to know the exact nature of "kinds" of things.

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
No, it's not "fundamentally missed"; I've said over and over that I'm addressing non-God-directed evolution. I don't bother with God-directed evolution, as there's no visible difference between it and NON-God-directed evolution.

actually there is a huge difference... most of your arguments are based on:

a) complexity can not come about without intelligence... god-directed evolution covers this

b) things can not change from one thing to another... god-directed evolution covers this

god-directed evolution also doesn't require one to throw out all the evidence that seems to point to the earth being very old and filled with life forms that change over that period of time

is there any one of your arguments god-directed evolution can not explain?

[Rían]

Maybe you have a different defn. of God-directed evolution than I have, brownie. The one I've seen is that basically God gave little nudges where needed to direct things the way He intended, but that basically it's invisible to us - we can't tell it apart from the macroevolutionary changes that supposedly occurred without His help. And how do you formulate any type of scientific hypothesis for this additional element of "God-help", anyway? I don't see how you can, so it's not even a scientific element. It's just the same as classic evolutionism, except it seems like it was just a crumb thrown to theists. "God did it" is not a scientific answer, either in cr. or ev.

However, "God did it, and in this specific manner" is a starting point to formulate what hypotheses can be formed in creationism, and "natural laws did it, and in this specific manner" is a starting point to formulate what hypotheses can be formed in evolutionism.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Cirdan
...but you have failed to show the difference between the two. If there were some barrier to evolutionary change it should be fairly evident.

It is evident - in Darwin's pigeons (yes, I mean pigeons, not finches ) that he bred over and over and they remained pigeons; in mice and in men (with a nod to Steinbeck). In flies with legs sticking out of their eyes (ewwww, gross! thanks, BOP! ) that are still flies. It is SO visible (for anyone that is open to see, IMO) that kinds remain kinds, and change ALWAYS hits limits. The beaks of the finches in the Galapagos changed, but they didn't turn into hands, and the finches didn't turn into fish.

If microevolution is a natural law (still really a theory, but for discussion's sake) then the limit should be testable. Just saying it can't because it can't doesn't play.

You're absolutely right - just saying "it can't" doesn't play. And just saying something (e.g., macroevolution) CAN happen doesn't play, either, using the same logic.

OF COURSE I realize that evolutionists v. reasonably say that there's not enough time to observe macroevolution - but that doesn't give them a free pass to say it happens. And as far as testable, well, some things aren't reasonably testable, like macroevolution. So you do the best you can with what you have. And the best we have is that ... observably, changes hit limits.

Chesterton's analogy is just that, not an actual fact. Like all analogies it fails under scrutiny. It reminds me of the old chestnut about the city fellow that stops the coutry fellow and asks for directions. He responds, "You can't get there from here!". This really means the route is complicated and the fellow doesn't know the way.

But it's not ONLY a question of "there"; it's also a question of the vehicle, or mechanism, involved; that's part of Chesterton's point. And if the "there" is Mars, and if the vehicle is a fly with a leg sticking out of its eye (ewww!), then the country guy would be darn right.

I have yet to hear the definition of "type". Are birds a single type? Are ostriches, penguins, and geese alll one type? The details of how this is set up is critical to analyzing how certain unusual species that are very similar in some ways and very different in others.

Yes, there's some oddballs out there, like the platypus. God has a sense of humor and also, I think, likes to throw monkeywrenches into our comfortable godless musings sometimes, because He loves us so much.

I would say that "kinds" would be roughly the same thing as species - a developing working definition. The Bible doesn't state what the "kinds" are, but it does mention major categories of animals. And evolutionism has these category lines being crossed, while the Bible says they are not crossable. The Bible's primary purpose is not science, but the hearts and souls of people, so it makes sense that there's not a discussion of Euclidean geometry in it. Leave it up to the people to discover! Life is amazing! and God has designed us to wonder and to explore. But whatever statements in the Bible happen to fall under the umbrella of science can be tested. I would say that one doesn't need to quibble about whether finches with one type of beak are one kind and finches with another type of beak are another, when it's easier and clearer to deal with the extremes.

How about fish? boneless, cartilagenous, notochord, spiny, lobe-finned, lungfish. Are the types the same as the standard classifications used in science but with dotted lines betweeen things that are not allowed to be related? It just that biologists sometimes disagree about these categories so it would be very useful to know the exact nature of "kinds" of things.

I'd like to know a lot of things. But I think "kinds" is rather low on the priority list of God for things that people should know, and I agree. So I think you could just use the major types of animals listed in the Bible as a BARE MINIMUM def'n of "kinds", and that will be PLENTY to go on, because that's a radical disagreement with evolutionism right there. IOW, don't sweat the small stuff (defining "kinds" down to the last earwig) when a broader categorization will do; it's the BIG stuff that really matters (people got here via ONLY naturalistic means and come from one-celled thingys - NOT! ).

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Maybe you have a different defn. of God-directed evolution than I have, brownie. The one I've seen is that basically God gave little nudges where needed to direct things the way He intended, but that basically it's invisible to us - we can't tell it apart from the macroevolutionary changes that supposedly occurred without His help. And how do you formulate any type of scientific hypothesis for this additional element of "God-help", anyway? I don't see how you can, so it's not even a scientific element. It's just the same as classic evolutionism, except it seems like it was just a crumb thrown to theists. "God did it" is not a scientific answer, either in cr. or ev.

However, "God did it, and in this specific manner" is a starting point to formulate what hypotheses can be formed in creationism, and "natural laws did it, and in this specific manner" is a starting point to formulate what hypotheses can be formed in evolutionism.

things that make you go hmmm...

too late friday to get too deep... in the end though, anytime you decide to throw an ultimate being into the picture, everything is questionable... as i said quite a while back in this thread or another, what's to say he just didn't bring everything into existance exactly as it is last tuesday?

the only things you can truely theorize about are the parts god did not do... the rest is just a wild guess, since after all, god can do anything he likes by definition... even change a fish to a finch if he wished too

[Rían]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
things that make you go hmmm...

hee hee!
(reminds me of "things that go bump in the night" )
(also reminds me of a category in Jeopardy - "I'll have 'things that make you go hmmm' for $100, Alex" )

too late friday to get too deep...

I agree! Whee! Let's par-TAY! *Runs to get a Dr. Pepper for herself and drinks of their choice for everyone else*

... since after all, god can do anything he likes by definition... even change a fish to a finch if he wished too

But He has constrained Himself, by His own choice, to NOT "do anything he likes" in ONE area - He has chosen to be bound by a person's free-will choice about whether or not they will live in heaven with Him. Forced love is worthless love ...

God, I love you guys, you're all so great ... and God loves you too, even more. Look at the stars this weekend - really look - they're calling to you...

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
But He has constrained Himself, by His own choice, to NOT "do anything he likes" in ONE area - He has chosen to be bound by a person's free-will choice about whether or not they will live in heaven with Him. Forced love is worthless love ...

i'd have to put this in the 'wild guess' category, as opposed to a testable theory... this thread is called evidence of creationism

[Rían]

Sorry for the rabbit trail When you said "god can do anything he likes by definition" it just got me to thinking about how the thing He wants to do the most, He has chosen NOT to do (because forced love is worthless, and free will is not free if something is forced).

I think we might be done here, anyway, at least for this round.


Until the next time when an innocent person claims that moths in England conclusively prove the entire theory of evolution, the Masked Assumption Buster flies off into the sunset ...

*grabs a Dr. Pepper and the Silmarillion and puts her feet up*

[brownjenkins]

until the next time the lines between fact and fancy get a bit blurred

*grabs a bass ale and settles down to read a bit more dune*

[Rían]

*gives brownie a poke in the ribs*

[BeardofPants]

You two behave yerselves, or I'll travel back in time with my tardis, and unmake Homo superior.

[Rían]

*snags BoP's pants and hightails it out of the thread*

[Cirdan]

It's been a while but I've been quite preoccupied.

Originally posted by RÃ*an
The beaks of the finches in the Galapagos changed, but they didn't turn into hands, and the finches didn't turn into fish.

There are plenty of cases where obvious species change occurs. Why do you insist on using the absurd claims about birds turning into fish that no one is making?

You're absolutely right - just saying "it can't" doesn't play. And just saying something (e.g., macroevolution) CAN happen doesn't play, either, using the same logic.

Faulty logic on your part. It is far easier to prove something might hapen than to prove it impossibe.

... there's not enough time to observe macroevolution - but that doesn't give them a free pass to say it happens. And as far as testable, well, some things aren't reasonably testable, like macroevolution.

Testable is not just chemical reactions in a laboratory.
Two Theories that cannot be tested.
1) Julius Ceasar was a Roman Emperor
2) Donald Duck was a Roman Emperor

Which one has more physical evidence and historical credibility based on the remaining fragments of an incomplete picture of the roman empire?

But it's not ONLY a question of "there"; it's also a question of the vehicle, or mechanism, involved; that's part of Chesterton's point. And if the "there" is Mars, and if the vehicle is a fly with a leg sticking out of its eye (ewww!), then the country guy would be darn right.

The only point of Chesterton's analogy is that, fast or slow, impossible is impossible. This analogy does nothing to prove possiblilty or impossibility. It is merely a ruse; a distraction from the point at hand.

The point of the analogy about the coutry guy isn't whether he is right or wrong but that he doesn't know and can't imagine the possibility.

The fly, because of it's bizzarre mutation (adapts well to weightlessness), is carried along on the first manned trip to Mars as a biological experiemennt. Or should I call NASA and let them know Mars is unreachable and they ought to cancel the project?

I would say that "kinds" would be roughly the same thing as species

Good luck with Noah's Ark, then.

But whatever statements in the Bible happen to fall under the umbrella of science can be tested.

Like the creation event, Noah's Ark, Johan living inside a whale's gut, the immaculate conception, and the resurrection?

I'd like to know a lot of things. But I think "kinds" is rather low on the priority list of God for things that people should know, and I agree.

I'm not familiar with the chapter and verse where the priority list is kept. I know the ten commandments but that is really a list of thing NOT to do. So understanding "God's creation" is a low priority? No wonder the environment is such a mess.

IOW, don't sweat the small stuff (defining "kinds" down to the last earwig) when a broader categorization will do...

That's convenient. The you can just rule out things that are virtually alike, fossil species with obviously more than one related species. Maybe we can ignore all the genetic data too because details are boring and irrelevant.

BTW, you are still confusing the hypothesis of abiogenesis with the theory of evolution. Do I go around confusing Moses with Jesus?


*heads off to the library to get Children of Dune*

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Testable is not just chemical reactions in a laboratory.
Two Theories that cannot be tested.
1) Julius Ceasar was a Roman Emperor
2) Donald Duck was a Roman Emperor

Which one has more physical evidence and historical credibility based on the remaining fragments of an incomplete picture of the roman empire?

Thats awsome. *writes it down*

[Rían]

Originally posted by Cirdan
There are plenty of cases where obvious species change occurs. Why do you insist on using the absurd claims about birds turning into fish that no one is making?

There are no "obvious species change[s]" that are observable on the macroevolution level, but we've already been thru that. I don't count bird beaks changing, when both species are still birds. And what's so absurd about claiming birds can turn into fish, when evolutionism claims that fishy-things turned into birds? Really pretty unfair tactics, IMO.

Faulty logic on your part. It is far easier to prove something might hapen than to prove it impossibe.

"Faulty logic"? Where in the world is the faulty logic? Please point it out, because the sentence that followed your "faulty logic" claim certainly didn't point out my supposed faulty logic. Really, Cirdan, I've never seen anyone, IMO, as terrified as you are that evolutionism might not be true. What is there about the possibility of eternity and the consequences of our moral choices that scares you so much?

And you can't "prove" something "might" happen.

Testable is not just chemical reactions in a laboratory.
Two Theories that cannot be tested.
1) Julius Ceasar was a Roman Emperor
2) Donald Duck was a Roman Emperor

Which one has more physical evidence and historical credibility based on the remaining fragments of an incomplete picture of the roman empire?

Well, you just proved my point - it seems that you agree that things in the past cannot be tested, since you said "Two Theories that cannot be tested". And I agree that there is more historical credibility that Julius was an emperor, and it is reasonable for most people to believe that, even tho there is no scientific test, because it's in the past. And in my considered opinion, evolutionism's claims about the past fall into the Donald Duck category. Your opinion is different, obviously.

The only point of Chesterton's analogy is that, fast or slow, impossible is impossible. This analogy does nothing to prove possiblilty or impossibility. It is merely a ruse; a distraction from the point at hand.

It points out a common fallacy - that mere time removes difficulties. His point is: don't get mesmerized by people saying it took billions and billions of years - look at the thing claiming to have happened and evalute its probability on its merits. Roadblocks are not removed by lots of time unless you can show how it happened.

And he's right.

The point of the analogy about the coutry guy isn't whether he is right or wrong but that he doesn't know and can't imagine the possibility.

And you're free to use that analogy, and I'm free to disagree with it. I think a more accurate analogy includes the proposed vehicle.

The fly, because of it's bizzarre mutation (adapts well to weightlessness), is carried along on the first manned trip to Mars as a biological experiemennt. Or should I call NASA and let them know Mars is unreachable and they ought to cancel the project?

Well, considering it has been proven that we can land a vehicle on Mars, I think calling NASA would be pretty silly, don't you? Their vehicle is a valid vehicle to get to Mars. If NASA proposed flying the fly on the back of a swallow, then I would suggest that we both call NASA and tell them that we don't think a swallow is a vehicle that can make it to Mars.

Good luck with Noah's Ark, then....

Like the creation event, Noah's Ark, Johan living inside a whale's gut, the immaculate conception, and the resurrection?

I don't get what you're saying here. Jonah inside the fish can't be proven scientifically; so what?

I'm not familiar with the chapter and verse where the priority list is kept. I know the ten commandments but that is really a list of thing NOT to do. So understanding "God's creation" is a low priority? No wonder the environment is such a mess.

On the contrary, we are commanded to be good stewards over the earth and take care of it.

And BTW, if you want the chapter and verse of a priority list, try Matthew 19:16-26; and there are others.

And BTW #2, not all of the 10 commandments are "NOT"s.

That's convenient. The you can just rule out things that are virtually alike, fossil species with obviously more than one related species. Maybe we can ignore all the genetic data too because details are boring and irrelevant.

Again, you misunderstand me, but I won't take time for this one - it's just too silly a claim.

BTW, you are still confusing the hypothesis of abiogenesis with the theory of evolution.

No, I'm not.

Do I go around confusing Moses with Jesus?

I don't know; do you? They're both pretty cool guys