Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
Technically, lions are cats, but if I take this to mean Felis sylvestris, the common housecat, then I would like to point out something most people don't realize about cats.
Taxonomy is a matter of descendant groups within ancestral groups. There are untold breeds of housecats within just one of some three dozen or so different feline species which constitute a single genera, Felis.
Lions, tigers, leopards and jaguars and other panthers aren't just different species from housecats, cougars and other felines; they are in a different genus, Panthera, meaning they're even more distantly-related than you may have guessed. The other known felid genera are the cheetahs, lynx and the extinct scimitar cats.
Occasionally, two closely-related species can be interbred, usually, (but not always) with infertile offspring. There have been one or two fertile mules for example. However, crossing two different genus is exponentially more difficult. They managed to cross a llama with a camel, (for example) but that took two years' research, and several attempts at artificial insemination.
The further two groups grow apart, the harder it is to breed them back together. But if they're still very closely-related, it might be possible (on some occasions) to produce viable offspring. This all indicates that there is no solid dividing line between "kinds". And even if there was, "species" can't be that division because we've already seen it crossed many times.
It also suggests that the TOE is highly improbable due to the hindered reproductive nature of the interbreeding. So does that leave us with both theories being invalid and we should claim alien cloning to be fact, or does it mean that we attribute both theories as possible and look to science to close the question? I vote, that both are considered possible and we look again to science for answers to questions we still have.
In fact, I think I might take a trip to the library tomorrow.
I do have to ask a question about this; Is your origin really that important to you? I've been a Christian... well, forever really, and I've gone back and forth on the origin issue for the past 2 years, although I don't really consider it of the utmost importance. Would I like to have a firm confidence and argument for one side? Sure. But I've never really viewed it as a life changing experience.
The life-changing aspect of this experience is that I learned the extent of what science is discovering, and what it could do for me. I learned how to ask questions. I learned how to consider both sides of important issues, and how to use critical thinking skills to find the answer. I learned--far too late--that I was no longer a child and did not simply need to echo the fundamentalist religion that I had been taught. I can not describe for you the immense benefits this new outlook on life has given me. It involves far more than reaching a correct understanding of the creation.
To some extent this depends on how you define creationism. Most of us here are familiar with the descriptions of creationism used by major creationist organizations such as ICR and AIG and even the more wacko versions promoted by the likes of Kent Hovind and Jack Chick.
Some versions of creationism explicitly include a global flood based on Gen. 6-8.
A version that includes a global flood is easily disproved by geology as nothing in geology supports a global flood. As early as 1831, Christians who understood the implications of geology agreed that Noah's flood must have been a local, not a global event.
All Young-earth and some Old-earth versions of creationism call for the near simultaneous creation of all species (or "kinds"). This is also falsified by the geological record which clearly shows that no species has existed throughout the whole history of the earth. For a considerable period of time (about 2 billion years as measured scientifically) the only living forms occurring in the fossil record are simple bacteria and archea. For nearly half as long again, the only additional life forms are simple unicellular eukaryotes (aka protista). Then we start to get some multi-cellular algae and (about 700 million years ago) the strange Ediacaran animals, most of whom have no relationship to any modern species whatsoever. Only then do we get to the so-called Cambrian explosion, with many new forms of marine fauna. Most of these, such as trilobites, have long since become extinct. It is not until after the Cambrian period that we find the first hint of life on land---some possible plant spores. Terrestrial plant life is not confirmed until the Silurian, which also shows the first animal life on land (spiders, centipedes). Meanwhile the only major vertebrates in existence are sharks and fish. Vertebrates capable of living on land do not appear until the Devonian period, and amphibians appear long before reptiles. No dinosaurs, birds or mammals and no flowering plants (only mosses, ferns and some very un-modern gymnosperms) are found in these periods.
Rather than continue through the whole geologic column--this is more than enough to show that species appear billions of years apart in the fossil record, and many species become extinct before newer species appear.
This fully falsifies any version of creationism which calls for all species to be created at the same time and to be contemporaneous with each other.
We can leave to another time the question of human relationship to other animals as I believe that requires more background. Suffice it to say that as far as I am aware, all versions of creationism, including day-age Old-Earth Creationism, which comes closest to matching the geology and fossil record of science, maintain that human beings are a separately created kind with no phylogenic relation to apes or any other form of life. The evidence strongly indicates the contrary.
Now you have not proposed any of the above (global flood, all species created at once, humanity a separately created kind). You have proposed only two theses in the "original theory" of TOC:
1. God made all things.
2. All living things reproduce after their kind.
The basic problem with these propositions is that, as stated, they are not unique to creationism, so they do not define TOC as being in any way distinguishable from other theories. An evolutionist can support both of those statements. So does ID. Because these statements do not distinguish TOC from other theories, there is no basis on which to discuss TOC as a theory. It may as well not exist, if the only way in which it exists is in complete conformity with other theories.
However, there are two clarifications to be made that would distinguish TOC so that it can be discussed as a theory in its own right.
1. Define "kind". There is a sense in which the concept that all things reproduce after their kind is fully consistent with TOE. In fact, without this rule, we could not get the nested hierarchy which is a powerful piece of supporting evidence for TOE.
But there are other senses of "kind", which, if true, would falsify TOE.
And there are senses of "kind", which, if true, would falsify TOC.
An example of a definition of "kind" which would falsify TOE would be "Kind is the approximate equivalent of a taxonomic family." If this were true, it would be quite impossible for a dinosaur "kind" to evolve into a bird "kind" or a deer "kind" to evolve into a whale "kind". And TOE not only claims this could happen, but claims evidence that it did happen.
An example of a definition of "kind" which would falsify TOC would be "Kind is the approximate equivalent of a taxonomic species." If this were true, it would be quite impossible for ring species to exist or for an above-ground species of mosquito to become a different species of mosquito upon adapting to live in the London subway tunnels. But we know these things have happened, so either TOC is falsified or "kind" is not equivalent to "species".
2. Once, "kind" is defined, state unequivocally whether modern humans are a specially created kind with no relationship to any other "kind", or part of a "kind" which includes other species.
With these clarifications, TOC can now stand on its own as a theory instead of being just part of another theory. And it can be tested against the evidence to determine its validity.
How has science disproven ID?
Basically through lack of supporting evidence.
ID depends on producing evidence of "irreducible""/specified" complexities which cannot, in principle, be explained by evolution. If even a plausible way to get the complexity through evolution can be proposed (whether or not the complexity really evolved that way), then the complexity does not fit the criteria of ID.
For ID is not just saying that evolution has so far failed to explain complexity A; ID is saying that evolution is incapable of ever explaining complexity A. So any plausible explanation of how evolution could produce complexity A shows that ID is wrong to call it an irreducible/specified complexity.
To date, this is what has happened in every case proposed as an example of irreducible/specified complexity. A plausible means of producing the complexity has been described.
Is the evidence for evolution only a mass of suggestions?
The answer to that will depend a lot on what you understand the TOE to be. Many people do not understand the TOE. They believe it says things it does not say or does not say things it does say. They make assumptions about TOE which are not correct, and so claim the evidence is not convincing.
The answer to that will also depend a lot on understanding science in general. What counts as evidence? What is the relationship between theory and evidence? How is theory tested? How are we assured that the results of scientific method are accurate?
Now, what have we seen in your posts.
1. Although you try to include ID, it appears you are not very familiar with this idea. You do not base any of your arguments on ID theory or proposed ID evidence. This theory is not being examined in any way on this thread.
2. I am prepared to take your word that you do not believe in the TOC, but rather only lean in that direction. However, as long as you limit TOC to only the two principles you have stated, it is not possible to discuss TOC, since these two principles do not distinguish it from any other theory. All the theories are open to the possibility of creation by God (although this is not a scientific statement and not falsifiable by scientific method) and all theories agree that parent organisms produce organisms of the same kind/species/sub-species/etc. as themselves.
What is needed from you, if the discussion is to continue, is a description of how TOC differs from the other theories. I would note that you are eager to see what the various theories can offer each other, how they can enrich each other's insights. That is commendable. But if TOC does not differ in any way from the other theories, then it has nothing distinctive to offer.
3. Many of your posts indicate that you have very limited understanding of scientific method and many incorrect assumptions about TOE. I will make a separate post to deal with some of these misconceptions.
Could it be that in your desire to see others stop making assumptions about TOC and/or your own inclinations, you have overlooked the possibility that you are making assumptions about TOE and the outlook of those who consider it to be a fact as well as a theory?
Are you as open to having your assumptions about TOE corrected as you ask us to be about our assumptions in regard to TOC?
This is not a totally fair evaluation, but somewhat helpful. Just some things that I want to touch on. You people have been pushing the discussion to E vs. C not me. I have been pushing the discussion to what is possible. Secondly, you totally fail to evaluate the TOE as you have done the other theories. Including the areas where the theory fails. And yes, we know that there are areas where the TOE cannot answer all the questions. Thirdly, to put forth possibilities is scientific in nature. It is how we determine what is possible and what is not. So how does putting forth possibilities equal lack of scientific misconceptions.
By all means, correct the misconceptions, that is what communication is all about. I have been surprised already several times on this thread by how much the TOE has changed since I studied it in school, how much many of you differ in your understanding of the theory and how much the theory now resembles the TOC during it's own evolution as a theory.
It also suggests that the TOE is highly improbable due to the hindered reproductive nature of the interbreeding.
This is a false assumption about TOE. It is an indication that your information about TOE is incorrect and leads you to make false predictions based on faulty information.
As Aron-Ra just explained, TOE predicts that successful inter-breeding will only occur between closely related species. As the distance between two species widens, successful inter-breeding becomes rarer and eventually non-existant.
This is what we observe in nature.
What information about TOE made you think the theory was out of synch with reality? What information about TOE made you think it required there be no hindrance to interbreeding among species?
Whatever it was, chuck it. It is incorrect information.
This is a good reply to regularly rotten/raving ET ripostes..
Originally Posted by razzelflabben
I do not even understand what you want me to answer. Can you clarify your pupose for these questions? Two things are apparent in this post.
1. You fail to understand the fuzziness of the definitions that we have been discussing.
2. You fail to understand that at this point in our scientific research, there is no fact when relating to our origins. Both are possible. Why do the people here, read my posts claiming that both, especially since they overlap so, are possible and then go off trying to prove that E is the only viable theory because I am trying to prove that C is fact?
What I have said many times over, is that there are many many unanswered questions which equals no conclusive proof as to which theory is truth. This statement is met with the same passion that a mama bear protects her young and yet you claim that the TOE is not a belief system. I have yet to meet this type of behavior that was not directly related to a belief system. When I came here, I had hoped to find otherwise, but unfortunately, you people have done more to push me toward C than I ever thought was possible. When will you understand, that it is about all the unanswered questions? All the gray areas? None the less, I will try to answer these questions but please understand, it is off topic and I don't really understand what you are asking.]
What definition of species are we going by in this discussion? Some of these creatures, I do not know what they are, I am not an animal buff. But without knowing what definition we are going with, I cannot answer. I already answered a similar line of questions on another post but had a definition to work with.[/color][/left]
[left][color=black] Again, what definition do we want to work with. The beginning of this quote concerns me, both theories are supported by scientific evidence, both theories leave unanswered questions about our environment. Why must we label one as truth and the other as false? Theory would allow for either to be truth. Isn't that the point of theory? A direction for finding answers, truth?
There's that which is truth idea again. Now I am sure you or someone else will accuse me of evading the issue but I really don't understand what you are wanting me to answer. We have been talking about species, now you are asking about long ancestorial lines? And the thread is not about either! Are you asking me what is possible in the TOC or are you asking for my personal belief, or what the traditional C answers are, or just exactly what are you asking me and how does it relate to the theme of the thread?
Well, first what I will tell you is that there are still more questions about our world than there are answer, for both theories. Secondly, possibleexplainations would include different species, incomplete data, and the possibility for some interspecies (sub species) synapomorphies. Is that what you were looking for in this big long post?
I know I'm a few pages behind, but WOW, please tell me how! I was not aware of this.
Oh... nevermind. I just realized there's 59 pages and not 10...
Welcome Matt. Don't let the 59 (now 62) pages throw you. The answer to your question is in them. Take your time and read them.
To save time you might go to my post on page 59. It's a short summary of two common creationist claims that have been fully disproved (global flood and simultaneous creation of all species.)
Elsewhere on this forum is a whole thread presenting the geological evidence that proves the flood was not global. More good reading.
Last edited by gluadys; 14th August 2004 at 12:57 PM.
Reason: correcting typo
Razzelflabben, thank you for your answers. I still don't get your position, but if you don't mind I'll keep on asking questions untill I get it.
Now that is communication and what I have been asking people for.
Indeed, I saw the correction made later on. If you agree, I'd like to use the corrected definition:
Since I asked you whether you agreed with the definition and you wrote you can work with it, I don't see the difference. If there are differences, where are these and why?
I asked the question because many people tend to read into answers rather than work with the answers given as you are doing.
Because other animals don't stay in their immature forms and reproduce in these forms. That's what makes them different species, not just them being immature forms of the same species.
This can be unique to the species, or it can be evidence for E. The bottom line, it is one of the gray areas in the definition of species. I consider it the same species because of the fact that they grow up to be the same species as their parents. In a similar way to a catapillar becomeing a butterfly. A catapillar does not mature into a frog, that would be a new species, or if it remained a catapillar dispite the environment, then it would be new species perion, not possible new species, possible built in adaptability to it's environment. Either is possible, I lean toward same species for the above reasons.
So, if you were presented with the same example, but then present in nature, you'd except that speciation had happened in nature? I'm getting a little confused here. We know speciation can happen in the laboratory, agree or not? Therefore, it is proof speciation can happen. That was all this example was meant to show, IIRC. Thus, evolution can happen, true of false? Your objection would then be not that evolution cannot happen, it is observed in the laboratory, but that evolution might not have happened in nature. Is that your postion?
Agreed and stated many times. E is possible based on the observations we have made. Because of the unanswered questions and possible explainations of the other theories, the possibility of E does not equal the TOE is fact. That spcies can change, yes, we have observed that. That this change can, did, and does occur to create new viable species has not yet been proven.
For me, I have considered some of the options you pointed out. Maybe we'll get to that later on.
They are starting to, but I'll keep asking you questions to at least get your position clear.
Thanks for the communication, it is much better than trying to go around proving how wrong someone is especially when we have already agreed that they are right.
Can't you even follow your own ad hoc rationalizing? You suggested that the reasons dinosaurs became extinct before humans is because humans are still here --- in relation to the fact that we don't find human and dinosaur bones in the same strata --- while suggesting that humans an dinosaurs "might" have lived contemporaneously. Yet, crocodiles, who still exist today --- and do live contemporaneously with humans today --- are found in the same strata as dinosaurs.
How do you explain that inconsistency other than ad hoc handwaving? Don't forget, this is about you trying to excuse the fact that we don't find dinosaur and human bones in the same strata. We are looking for facts about evolution aren't we?
Well apparently you totally missed my point. First, I have never said, in fact, I am running out of ways of saying that the observations suggest that the TOE is possible. What do you people not understand about that statement? The TOE is possible. However, there are still many questions that the TOE cannot answer about the information we currently have and that is what makes the TOE theory. The same is true for the original theory of C, we have observations that suggest that the TOC could be possible but that the TOC still has many questions that cannot be answered by the current observations, thus making the TOC theory.
The comments you are refering to were comments that put forth possible answers to the many questions. NOTE possible answers, not absolute answers. To this, I was accused of many things that simply were not true. I was asked about dinosaur fossils and I said that since we are still here, and dinosaurs are extinct, we can assume that dinosaurs became extinct before man. Now this is somhow irrational, illogical thinking now. Show me the illogic in determining that an animal that is currently extinct, became extinct before modern man? Please, I am anxious to know the illogic to this statement.
I do have to ask a question about this; Is your origin really that important to you? I've been a Christian... well, forever really, and I've gone back and forth on the origin issue for the past 2 years, although I don't really consider it of the utmost importance. Would I like to have a firm confidence and argument for one side? Sure. But I've never really viewed it as a life changing experience.
The important thing to me is that people not be turned away from faith by false impressions of what one is required to believe. Whether it is an atheist who is tentatively considering belief, or a person raised to believe creationism is an important aspect of belief who is discovering how riddled with falsehood it is, and questioning her faith because of it, creationism is a serious and unnecessary stumbling block to embracing Christianity whole-heartedly.
I also find that creationism is usually tied to bibliolatry (worship of the bible as the sole source of revelation instead of worship of Christ as the Word of God and openness to the testimony of the Holy Spirit and of creation itself) and to an unconscious but real gnosticism which denies the goodness and permanence of the material world --- a direct contradiction of God's assessment of the material world as "very good".
So, while the question of our origin may not be of earth-shattering importance in and of itself, for me it has very important theological and evangelical considerations. For me, as for doubtingmerle, discovering the truth of our evolutionary origins was indeed a life-changing experience which brought me closer to God. Otherwise I would probably have long since left the church and joined the ranks of the skeptics.
The most important fact to me about life is Jesus and what He did for everyone. Although there are many questions in life, none of them or their answers could mean to me what Jesus did means to me.
I agree. This is the most important fact, and I certainly don't think not understanding or agreeing with evolution is going to put anyone's relationship with God in jeopardy. But I also don't think you can box this fact off from other facts.
For example: the way in which one understands scripture will necessarily be influenced by the way one understands our origins in and relationship to the rest of nature. A strictly literal, chronological, historical reading of Gen. 1-11 and a scientific understanding of evolution are not compatible, and that will make a significant difference in how one relates to scripture and to the deity which inspired it.
You're wrong. And your dismissing the tons and tons of evidence that I cited in my post does not turn it into "a minute amount." Didn't you notice that I bolded the word never every time I used it? In all our tons of dinosaur fossil finds, we never find any evidence of interaction with humans or human fossils in the same starta. Never.
Again, I go back to the forensics analogy. If you place the same level of evidence as a jury member at a murder trial no one would ever get convicted. If you want to wait until ever single square inch of soil in the Western Hemisphere is dug up and found free of Hominid fossils, that's your issue, not sciences.
Hon, I'm gonna need you to keep up with the discussion if it's going to be productive. We have found human remains in strata dating back 10-12,000 years. We have never found dinosaur remains dating back to less than 65 million years ago. We have found Australid and Hominid (did you notice I kept using those words) remaind back to around 3 million years ago. We have never found dinosaur remains younger than 65 million years ago. We have found dinosaur remains in the Western Hemisphere. We have never found Australid or Hominid fossils in the Western Hemisphere.
BTW, we've never found a fossilized human remain in the Western Hemisphere. 10,000 years is insufficient time for fossilization to occur. We have found bones and artifacts.
How about instead of just alluding to "possibilities" you present some? Again, I think the burden is on those who claim O.J. didn't kill Nichole to tell us why we have never found anything to contradict current evolutionary thinking (other than ad hoc rationalizations).
I'm even sorrier because after nearly 60 pages of having it explained to you in excruciatingly time consuming detail - you apparently wouldn't know a fact if it walked up to you wearing a "Hi I'm a fact" t-shirt and shook hands with you. You're not interested in what is true, you're interested in "TRVTH" which you seem to think you have a monopoly on. I can't help you see the trees until you've realized you're in a forrest, not a field of dreams.
And I cannot help those who cannot accept there are still unanswered questions see that the evidence is not equal to proof. So I guess we are at an impass and I will count myself inriched to have crossed paths with you and move on. Please don't stop seeking truth, someday, you may find it if you keep looking, I plan to.
This is a good reply to regularly rotten/raving ET ripostes.. 
Linear Mode
