What evidence is required?

Jerry Smith · #11 20th June 2002, 08:39 PM

Originally posted by npetreley
And, by the way, when you can demonstrate that God died and left you in charge, then I'll start to care about when you think I'm in a position to say anything.

I was hoping, that just maybe, you would stop for a moment to care whether you were actually in such a position.

As for whether or not you have the evidence I'd require, I didn't think that was the point of this thread. Someone asked what evidence I'd accept, and I responded. Nobody asked for something you personally could deliver.

Ok, I'll buy that

As for the rest of your statement, I've never claimed to have evidence against evolution, so I have no idea what you're talking about. But if I were looking for some, I'd start with your posts.

I'm glad you admit you have no evidence against evolution. Now if you will just admit that others do, but thinking about it bugs you & that you have a hard time understanding how something like a transitional fossil can be evidence, then we will really be getting somewhere.

chickenman · #12 20th June 2002, 08:46 PM

haha, this is great, creationists aren't really interested in the evidence. You could have 1,000,000 years worth of videotapes of every single organism involved in a major macroevolutionary change from one taxa to another, with documentation of every single base change/insertion/deletion and every single mating pair, and a creationist would dismiss it. Evidence is only interesting to them if it fits with creation

Morat · #13 20th June 2002, 10:14 PM

First, you have to agree to use some other term than speciation. If you're using that word to set up creationists to whip the London mosquito on them, then you're simply being intellectually dishonest and you can disregard the rest of my post.

There are large numbers of observed speciation events.

Got bugs on the brains, hmm?

But I'm assuming that's not what you're doing, and that you are using the word "speciation" to mean something on the order of a dinosaur evolving into a bird.

That wouldn't be the right word, now would it?

Quick Nick, in straight Linnean taxonomy, what is the first level Birds and Dinosaurs divurge? Species? Genus? Family? Class? Order? Phylum? Kingdom?

Tick-tock.

Once you answer that, I suppose you'd have a good word. Something of a useless word. "Classation" or "Orderation" events would be a darn good disproof of evolution, if that happened on any timescale shorter than millions.

npetreley · #14 21st June 2002, 02:50 AM

Originally posted by Jerry Smith

I was hoping, that just maybe, you would stop for a moment to care whether you were actually in such a position.

You misunderstand me. I just don't care if YOU think I'm in such a position.

Originally posted by Jerry Smith

I'm glad you admit you have no evidence against evolution. Now if you will just admit that others do...

Others have evidence against evolution? Cool. Show me and I'll admit it.

npetreley · #15 21st June 2002, 02:59 AM

Originally posted by Morat

That [SPECIATION] wouldn't be the right word, now would it?

Quick Nick, in straight Linnean taxonomy, what is the first level Birds and Dinosaurs divurge? Species? Genus? Family? Class? Order? Phylum? Kingdom?

So are you now admitting that BSC speciation and evolution from bacteria to kangaroo are not the same thing?

tycho · #16 21st June 2002, 10:29 AM

Speciation: I used that word because I didn't want this discussion to involve the origin of life. But yes, Nick, I do want to stay away from "microevolution" & discuss large-scale changes.

My main point of starting this thread was to see if it was physically possible to convince the more frequently posting creationists here that evolution was true. From what I've seen so far, the answer is 'no'. Lanakila seemd to indicate that God would have to be acknowledged in the process, which as we've discussed before is not in the realm of science &, therefore, will not happen. Nick requires 2 points. 1) millions of fossils showing each step across a large change. This is one is unlikely since there just aren't that many complete fossils. 2) lab. replication. This is simply not feasible. To be able to observe 1 million generations of any species, even one that reproduces 10 times daily, would take over 200 years. Needless to say, this just isn't going to happen in our lives.

My conclusion: unless Lanakila & Nick change their requirements of proof, it is not physically possible, regardless of how bulletproof the evolutionist argument becomes, to convince them of it.

bonobo · #17 21st June 2002, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by npetreley

... The only way to provide hard evidence for evolution by natural causes is to block off a wildlife preserve and observe all the life within it for a few million years until you've recorded the equivalent of the process of a dinosaur evolving into a bird.

Guess what: this preserve does already exist. In fact, it has existed for a few million years. It is called Australia. Only we could not directly watch the evolution of marsupials (but not mammals), we again have to rely on indirect evidence...

kern · #18 21st June 2002, 10:55 AM

If that is the kind of proof you expect, then a lot of science suddenly becomes invalid because of "lack of proof".

What you are saying is something like a justice system that would require a crystal-clear videotape of a murder (with audio, and preferably multiple tapes from different angles), otherwise the suspect would have to be acquitted because there's no proof he did it.

-Chris

Morat · #19 21st June 2002, 01:08 PM

So are you now admitting that BSC speciation and evolution from bacteria to kangaroo are not the same thing?

Nope. I'm simply stating your terminology is horrid.

Speciation is the appearance of a new species from a pre-existing one. Not the appearance of a new genus, or order, or family, or class, or phylum, or kingdom.

Although, of course, the roots of any of those Linnean branches rest in a speciation event. The first vetebrate was barely distinquishable from the invertebrate it speciated from. Billions of years later, there's no confusing the two.

I'd introduce you to cladistics, but given your difficulties with simple ideas...

TScott · #20 21st June 2002, 02:34 PM

We know that evolution exists, we can emulate evolution and cause organisms to evolve in the laboratory. Consider bean and other legume genetics. Been doing it for decades.

In a broad sense, I see no major conflict between Genesis and evolution. They can be compatable if one realizes that the prospective audience for Genesis were people that lived about 2800 years ago. They wouldn't have understood genetics, mass extinctions or even the concept of a billion years or a billion anything. IMO Genesis and much of the rest of the Pentateuch were re-writes of existing Babylonian and Sumerian myths and that their purpose was to demonstrate human relationships with the God of Abraham.

The theory of evolution is no more threat to religion than Genesis is a threat to science. It is only the narrow mindendness and chauvinism of people that threatens either.