What Lies Beneath

[Resha Caner]

The better (and more Biblical) theology is that God created the Big Bang and then let creatures evolve naturally.

More Biblical? Where does that come from? An example I've used before is some of the phrasing in Genesis. People will say, "Well, it's written that way because people didn't understand science back then." I disagree with that position.

Genesis says explicitly that God made everything, not that he let it evolve. So, if it were true that God allowed new species to emerge through an evolutionary process, how might Genesis convey that to a people who had not developed evolution science as we know it? It could simply have been written, "And the fish came up out of the water and became the lizards living on the land." I think Moses could have grasped that. After all, the idea of evolution (if not the details) is quite ancient.

If evolution is true, for the text to say God made everything then means God was lying.

I'm not sure what you think happened. God you think God created the Big Bang, and then created living things in a separate act millions of years later? Or what?

Our measure of time is a measure of material things (specifically, cesium). Since cesium didn't exist during the Big Bang, would you say time didn't exist or that time is something other than the material we now know?

I assume not from how you phrase the question. Is your point just that similar things didn't necessarily evolve? If so I'd say that is obviously true, but doesn't really deal with the theory of evolution.

The answer to your question is yes, and I elaborated more on that in my answer to KC.

No because the theory of evolution came out of mostly Christian nations. The theory came about because living things, from the evidence, looked evolved, not created.

The history isn't quite that clean. Are you saying all people who call themselves Christian have an identical philosophy?

Going back to my example, saying that human chromosome 2 appears to be a combination of two 'ape' chromosomes, isn't the same as saying there are similarities. It isn't saying that these two things are like each other so they must have evolved.

Yet it remains a supposition rather than a demonstrated result as far as I know. And for someone to decide what is good and bad design is a very subjective thing. I've been told evolution science makes no such judgements.

Well it is probably hard for me to say without knowing better how you think about the issue. But I'd think you might be biased against evolution being true.

Then ask some questions. The purpose of the thread is to dig to the root of these things. Why am I biased and you, supposedly, are not?

What do I trust? What do you mean by that? The scientific method has proven to the most effective source of truth, if you mean that.

As I've said, these philosophical explorations are just tools. I don't expect we're going to prove anything. But, IMO, people believe because of the experiences they trust.

So, you trust the scientific method. What about it do you trust? Do you think science would be the appropriate way for you to evaluate that special someone, significant other, life partner, spouse (whatever phrase you prefer)?

 

[Paradoxum]

More Biblical? Where does that come from? An example I've used before is some of the phrasing in Genesis. People will say, "Well, it's written that way because people didn't understand science back then." I disagree with that position.

Genesis says explicitly that God made everything, not that he let it evolve. So, if it were true that God allowed new species to emerge through an evolutionary process, how might Genesis convey that to a people who had not developed evolution science as we know it? It could simply have been written, "And the fish came up out of the water and became the lizards living on the land." I think Moses could have grasped that. After all, the idea of evolution (if not the details) is quite ancient.

If evolution is true, for the text to say God made everything then means God was lying.

More biblical because it actually understands the creation story/s as what they are. The stories would only be lies if they were meant to be fake stories to keep an ignorant people happy. But that isn't their point. They are spiritual myths which express spiritual truths. They aren't supposed to be read as history.

For example, God didn't actually rest on the 7th day. For God to rest makes no sense. It is just poetic licence used to explain the Sabbath.

Before Darwin it would have been right for Christians to reject the creation stories as history.

Our measure of time is a measure of material things (specifically, cesium). Since cesium didn't exist during the Big Bang, would you say time didn't exist or that time is something other than the material we now know?

We use objects to measure time... time isn't those things. Whether cesium exists makes no difference to times existence. Space-time is an independent thing that can be bent by gravity (ie: relativity). So once the Big Bang went beyond the singularity there probably was time.

The answer to your question is yes, and I elaborated more on that in my answer to KC.

Well I didn't see that.

The history isn't quite that clean. Are you saying all people who call themselves Christian have an identical philosophy?

Nope.

Yet it remains a supposition rather than a demonstrated result as far as I know. And for someone to decide what is good and bad design is a very subjective thing. I've been told evolution science makes no such judgements.

You know that a nerve that could go a few cm, but instead goes a few feet is bad design. From a practical point of view, the longer the nerve is, the more likely something could go wrong with it. No unbiased person would deny that.

Then ask some questions. The purpose of the thread is to dig to the root of these things. Why am I biased and you, supposedly, are not?

I don't claim to be completely unbiased. But for an example of bias there is you thinking that the creation story in genesis is historical. I bet if you read in another book that a god made a woman from a tooth you would think it was silly to think it is true.

It's such a small God that creates people like that. Like something you would expect from a Greek myth. God wouldn't need to put Adam to sleep to do it, and could easily create the woman out nothing anyway. He would also know about there needing to be both men and women. Also, it seems to imply that all other animals were made male and female, Adam couldn't get with any of them, so only then God realised that Adam needed a female counterpart.

I give God (if he is real) much more credit that the creation story does if it were meant to be taken literally. It makes complete sense as a meaningful spiritual myth, but it's no better than a fairy-tale when attempted to take as historical. It also quite an insult to Christianity, in my opinion, to the creation stories historically.

As I've said, these philosophical explorations are just tools. I don't expect we're going to prove anything. But, IMO, people believe because of the experiences they trust.

Well I think the God experiences make sense until you remember, or learn, that the mind can play tricks.

So, you trust the scientific method. What about it do you trust?

That it has found more truth, and proven them, than anything else. It works and we can see it work.

Do you think science would be the appropriate way for you to evaluate that special someone, significant other, life partner, spouse (whatever phrase you prefer)?

What does that mean? To evaluate them? I don't think science can make value judgements if that is what you are asking. Psychology (now or in the future) might hypothetically be able to find you a good match though.

 

[Davian]

There is a lot of data, yes. How the data is used is often where I take issue.

I haven't had a reason to question current gravitational theory. However, we don't use current gravitational theory in my work. In fact, we don't even use the Newtonian theory. We still use Galileo's formula, which is essentially: W = mg. I don't subscribe to scientific realism, but to more of an instrumentalism. So, do I "accept" gravitational theory? Shrug. It's kind of a non-issue with me.

But the amount of data doesn't really matter. I could bury you in data where, within the accuracy of the measurement, W = mg correlates. Does that make it "right"? No. In fact, I think the statement would be that science knows it's wrong. You only need one example to prove something wrong no matter how many examples say it's right.

Though, IMO, right & wrong, accept & reject are truth statements that don't apply to science. What should be happening is more a determination of boundaries. W = mg works within the boundaries where I apply it. However, I am aware there are boundaries beyond which we have data showing it doesn't work.

[edit] I probably should have clarified my terms. I was using "W" for weight. Sometimes "W" is used for work, in which case the formula is W = mgh, where m = mass, g = a gravitational constant, and h = height.

It would depend on why you dismissed the scientific theory of evolution, did you think it falsified, or did it not fit with the conclusions you have made about the biodiversity around us came about?

True. Though I find it frustrating, I would abandon the term "creationist" if I could find a better one. At one point I thought ID might be the new label I was looking for, but it has garnered the reputation of pseudoscience and creationism in sheep's clothing. So, it has it's own baggage.

So what should I call myself? I'll have to pick from the synonyms for "creation". A formationist? A genesist? A poieticist?

Hard to pick a label based on what you have rejected (YEC, TE, evolution). Tell us how you think it happened.

I did look up poeticism; an archaic, trite, or strained expression in poetry?

 

[Resha Caner]

They are spiritual myths which express spiritual truths. They aren't supposed to be read as history.

The problem with taking that approach is defining where the myth is supposed to end and the history is supposed to begin. There is nothing in Genesis that indicates a mythical form other than that you don't believe it. Honestly, I don't get it. If God is supposed to be powerful, why is it surprising when the Bible claims he did powerful things?

In other places poetic forms and visions are quite obvious.

For example, God didn't actually rest on the 7th day. For God to rest makes no sense. It is just poetic licence used to explain the Sabbath.

Why can't God rest?

We use objects to measure time... time isn't those things.

Then what is time? Is it immaterial? Can you show me time without reference to a material activity?

Nope.

Then we're back to the original question. Might it not be an underlying philosophical difference that leads one to a creationist vs. an evolutionist conclusion?

I don't claim to be completely unbiased. But for an example of bias there is you thinking that the creation story in genesis is historical. I bet if you read in another book that a god made a woman from a tooth you would think it was silly to think it is true.

I've had challenges like this before. I'm probably not as quick to dismiss these things as others might be. You have to start somewhere, establish a standard somehow. Again, what do you trust? It is when something conflicts with what you trust that you dismiss it.

So, do I dismiss that God spoke to Mohammed? No. It's possible he did. After all, I accept that God spoke to Moses, so why not Mohammed? But what Mohammed then preached conflicts with what I trust - my standard. So, whether God did or didn't talk to Mohammed is irrelevant. He went wrong somewhere along the line and I reject his message.

Well I think the God experiences make sense until you remember, or learn, that the mind can play tricks.

Once you go the route of doubting, it never ends. If you doubt one experience, why not another? For every reason you give to doubt, I can provide a reason not to doubt. It's all about what you trust, isn't it?

What does that mean? To evaluate them? I don't think science can make value judgements if that is what you are asking. Psychology (now or in the future) might hypothetically be able to find you a good match though.

Yes, I basically meant the value judgments. Do you love me? etc. If science is not the way to get to know your boyfriend/potential spouse, why would it be the way to get to know God?

What do you trust when it comes to personal relationships?

 

[Resha Caner]

It would depend on why you dismissed the scientific theory of evolution, did you think it falsified, or did it not fit with the conclusions you have made about the biodiversity around us came about?

Hard to pick a label based on what you have rejected (YEC, TE, evolution). Tell us how you think it happened.

This is sort of what I've been walking through with Paradoxum, so I'll refer you to those posts. But to answer your question, it is an issue I once raised in the science forum: have any falsification tests been done on the larger claims of evolution. The answer came back that, yes, there is a case of a falsification test for UCA. The progenitor of that test concluded that UCA remained unfalsified, but a litany of criticisms followed that left the conclusions very murky. That's the only example I know of. So, the answer is that evolution hasn't been falsified - largely because no one has ever really tried.

I did look up poeticism; an archaic, trite, or strained expression in poetry?

Actually, the word was "poieticist". It wasn't a typo. I intentionally looked for archaic words as a bit of humor.

Poietic | Define Poietic at Dictionary.com

 

[KCfromNC]

I'm not sure this is really worth debating. If you want to disagree with me and say the God of the Bible seems flippant, I'll let you have that opinion.

But, to answer your question, to be flippant is to lack seriousness (per this link: Flippant | Define Flippant at Dictionary.com). Since God loves creation (John 3:16), and based on the way 1 Corinthians 13 defines love, I would not say God's creative act lacked seriousness.

So, has someone actually observed this God creating and loving, or is this just an extrapolation? Remember, "extrapolation is not data ... not really even evidence".

I expected this might come up, and it's a valid point. I'll note a few things. First, doesn't the evolutionary stance mean it's all just chemistry anyway? Is there really any difference between living and nonliving structural changes?

Yes.

Yes, the processes are different and so we give them different names, but it's all just chemistry isn't it? It's not that evolution means there is something "special" about life. So, I think it's a valid comparison.

If you have to resort to pretending that there's no difference between living organisms reproducing and rocks being formed, it might be a hint that your argument isn't going very well.

Second, there are cases where one material structure does become another even though it's not "alive". I'm thinking of the heating and cooling of iron. My only point is that there are known examples of similar structure where one doesn't necessarily become the other. It might. It might not. Similarity is not enough in and of itself to claim one came from the other.

No one says it is.

So, has someone actually taken what is supposed to be a common ancestor to apes and humans and demonstrated an evolutionary descent where the chromosones become those of apes and humans with the noted similarity?

What, like with a time machine? I think that's a bit of an unreasonable request, especially since you're not willing to apply this level of rigor to your own claims.

I'm not aware of such a thing. I suspect that the conclusion is an extrapolation. Extrapolation is not data, not really even evidence (depending on what you mean by that term).

Which specific extrapolations do you object to? It's all well and good to play the "but that's just your opinion, man" game, but let's see specifically why your conclusion is better than the rest. This vague handwaving is not convincing.

Third, as I noted, it seems UCA is falling out of favor. So, it seems we can no longer definitively claim that all life came from the same root. As such, I'll bet we could find two species which don't come from the same evolutionary chain, which yet share striking similarities in some way.

I don't know of such an example

Then why did you bring it up? You berate others for "extrapolating" from the data and experimental evidence, and yet here you are extrapolating from something you're making up as if it were proof. If you're going to play ultra-skeptical, at least try to be consistent.

, but the point is that unless someone can prove it's impossible for two separate evolutionary chains to evolve similar chromosones, such noted similarities are just supposition.

Are you seriously telling us that no belief is justified unless we 100% absolutely disprove every possible alternative? Come on, quit kidding around.

I wouldn't quite phrase it that way. God has made promises and he keeps those promises. Some of the promises he has made are what we call scientific laws

So, has someone taken these promises and demonstrated that God actually made them, or is this another extrapolation?

As I pointed out above, I don't think it has been demonstrated that the "known mechanism" links the two chromosomes. As far as I can tell it's an extrapolation.

Of course not, but as you've shown above, your standard of proof is impossibly high - and inconsistently applied since you seem to be giving your religious ideas a free pass. But back here in reality, these conclusions are pretty strongly supported by the evidence.

Whenever I start asking for quantified rather than qualified definitions of these things and the boundaries within which these processes operate the conversation seems to veer off into unrelated territory.

What specifically do you want quantified?

 

[Resha Caner]

So, has someone actually observed this God creating and loving, or is this just an extrapolation? Remember, "extrapolation is not data ... not really even evidence".

Loving? Yes. Creating? No, not in the context we're speaking of here.

You speak later of claims I am making. I'm not sure what claims you refer to because I don't recall making any in this thread. I believe God created the universe because I take the Bible at its word. I never said I had data to support that. As such, I realize you won't believe it. I wouldn't expect that the first thing a new believer will accept is that God created the universe ... though I suppose that could happen.

So, with respect to the scientifically measureable mechanisms that manifested as God created life, my answer would be: I don't know.

If evolutionists were willing to make a similar statement, I would be satisfied with that. If they were to say something like: We know mutation can cause change, but we don't know how much of a role that played in the distribution of species found in the geological data. Mutation might facilitate survival, it might be neutral, it might be detrimental. Over the course of history we don't know which of those three is the larger trend. We don't know the boundaries of such change.

If they said that, I could die happy.

If you have to resort to pretending that there's no difference between living organisms reproducing and rocks being formed, it might be a hint that your argument isn't going very well.

How so? I acknowledged the processes are different and so it is proper to give them different names. But are you disagreeing with what I said?

Isn't mineral formation just chemistry? Isn't evolution just chemistry?

What, like with a time machine? I think that's a bit of an unreasonable request, especially since you're not willing to apply this level of rigor to your own claims.

As I said earlier, I would need to clarify what claim you think I'm making. If I'm not applying the same criteria, then I am being unfair. Agreed.

But it is not me who is creating a special level of rigor for an ordinary claim. It is the extraordinary nature of the claim itself that begs this level of evidence.

If I told you I could propel a Lego car across my desk using rubber bands, you would likely accept that. If I told you I could propel a full-sized locomotive across the U.S. using rubber bands, you'd say, "Prove it." Using a Lego car as my proof wouldn't be sufficient.

Likewise, if someone shows that mutations cause a change in the wing shape of a fruit fly, OK. I'll accept that. If someone claims mutations explain the diversity of all life on earth ... "Prove it."

Are you seriously telling us that no belief is justified unless we 100% absolutely disprove every possible alternative? Come on, quit kidding around.

I didn't ask for every possible alternative, nor did I ask about something which has never been observed. If one observes something from process A it is legitimate to ask whether the same thing applies to process B.

The answer can be no. But if it is, an explanation should follow.

I gave an example of similar mineral structures (chemistry process A) where one does not produce the other. So I then ask if anyone has ever looked for similar biological structures (chemistry process B) and found reason to conclude one did not evolve from the other? If so, what would be the criteria for saying similar things did or did not evolve from a common root?

At this point all I can conclude is that no one has tried and the criteria doesn't exist.

What specifically do you want quantified?

It would be a long list. Biology is, admittedly, making progress in quantifying its results, but evolution remains largely a composite of qualifications.

For example, one of the typical claims is that evolution explains the descent of species. OK, then quantify species. Give me an objective measure quantifying when an individual specimen is Drosophila melanogaster and when it's not. If "species" can't be defined, how can we say evolution explains the descent of species?

Some might say that sequencing genomes will get us there someday. Maybe it will. But someday isn't here yet. If that's what we're waiting for, then the claim shouldn't be made.

 

[Davian]

This is sort of what I've been walking through with Paradoxum, so I'll refer you to those posts. But to answer your question, it is an issue I once raised in the science forum: have any falsification tests been done on the larger claims of evolution. The answer came back that, yes, there is a case of a falsification test for UCA. The progenitor of that test concluded that UCA remained unfalsified, but a litany of criticisms followed that left the conclusions very murky. That's the only example I know of. So, the answer is that evolution hasn't been falsified - largely because no one has ever really tried.

This must be one of those snarky and dismissive replies you warned us about in the OP.

 

[Loudmouth]

I think this is a shift in meaning. Randomness does not have a purpose, true, but determinism need not have a purpose either. To say something has a purpose is to rise to the metaphysical.

The game of Craps is a good analogy for randomness in the process of mutation. As it turns out, the most common result in Craps is 7. This isn't because the dice are non-random, but because that result is just more probable, but still random. In the same way, certain bases in the genome will have a higher probability of mutating.

What truly makes Craps random is that the roll of the dice are not determined by the chips on the table. That is, the roll of the dice is random with respect to the bet. Putting $100 dollars on snake eyes does not increase the chance that the next roll will be snake eyes. In the same way, the chances that a mutation will occur is not increased by whether or not the offspring need that mutation. Mutations are random with respect to the needs of the organism. When biologists talk about randomness in mutations this is what they are referring to, and they have the experiments to back it up. For example, exposing bacteria to antibiotics does not increase the probability of a mutation giving rise to antibiotic resistance as compared to background mutation rates. These mutations occur at the same rate whether or not antibiotics are present.

Perhaps this is where scientists and creationists part ways. Scientists define their conclusions with reference to the evidence. Creationists define their conclusions with respect to their wishes of how they want the world to be.

 

[Paradoxum]

The problem with taking that approach is defining where the myth is supposed to end and the history is supposed to begin. There is nothing in Genesis that indicates a mythical form other than that you don't believe it. Honestly, I don't get it. If God is supposed to be powerful, why is it surprising when the Bible claims he did powerful things?

In other places poetic forms and visions are quite obvious.

It wouldn't be surprising if God did powerful things. If anything the problem is the weakness and smallness of the Genesis creation God. He creates the world in 7 days, not in an instant. He makes man before woman (ignorance and sexism), then makes the woman out of a rib. Out of a rib! If it were any other religion you would also be saying how silly that is. Satan was a serpent... if someone said today that a talking snake was telling them to do bad things we would think there was something wrong with them. It is also used as an explanation of why snakes have no legs (mythy).

Maybe it is harder to have a thoughtful faith rather than the simplistic 'everything is literal', but that is the price you pay for caring about the truth.

Why can't God rest?

God is an omnipotent being beyond space and time. For him to create the universe takes no effort at all. It would be no harder for him to create the universe, create an ant, or do nothing. It is very anthropomorphic to think God could rest.

Also the Bible says God never grows tired.

Then what is time? Is it immaterial? Can you show me time without reference to a material activity?

What do you mean by immaterial? As far as I understand it, time is more physical than we first thought, since it can be affected by things like mass/ gravity.

Material activity is the easiest way to understand time. That or mental activity and memories. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make though. It seems comparable to asking me to show you the Sun without your eyes. Well that would be more difficult, but that doesn't mean the Sun is nothing expect your eyes.

Then we're back to the original question. Might it not be an underlying philosophical difference that leads one to a creationist vs. an evolutionist conclusion?

I don't know if there is a big difference. I would generally put it down to ignorance, bias, or being uncritical.

I've had challenges like this before. I'm probably not as quick to dismiss these things as others might be. You have to start somewhere, establish a standard somehow. Again, what do you trust? It is when something conflicts with what you trust that you dismiss it.

The Bible isn't a basic standard though. It would be no different than picking a random book from the book shelf.

So, do I dismiss that God spoke to Mohammed? No. It's possible he did. After all, I accept that God spoke to Moses, so why not Mohammed? But what Mohammed then preached conflicts with what I trust - my standard. So, whether God did or didn't talk to Mohammed is irrelevant. He went wrong somewhere along the line and I reject his message.

I'm not sure what this is suppose to answer though.

Once you go the route of doubting, it never ends. If you doubt one experience, why not another? For every reason you give to doubt, I can provide a reason not to doubt. It's all about what you trust, isn't it?

It sounds like you are saying it is all opinion... which doesn't give me great hope that you actually care about the truth.

Can you give me an example of an experience in favour of God? It is quite hard to talk about it when I'm not sure exactly what type of experience you are thinking of. Can you also give another type of experience you think I could doubt on the same grounds?

Yes, I basically meant the value judgments. Do you love me? etc. If science is not the way to get to know your boyfriend/potential spouse, why would it be the way to get to know God?

If I love someone can be determined through introspection. To find out if someone else loves me I have to see, hear, and feel how they treat me. Experience. I get to know someone by my interaction with them in the physical world.

To get to know someone you have to know they exist. If I've never see, heard, or felt someone I claim to be my boyfriend... but I claim to know him very well anyway... well, maybe I'm imagining him. Even if I say that he appeared to me once, that doesn't mean he is real. He could be just a dream, a hallucination, or something similar.

By the way, I accept that reason can help us come to the truth, not just science.

What do you trust when it comes to personal relationships?

Consistent interaction with them through the physical world.

(And sorry if I said anything mean... I get unnecessarily annoyed by anti-science opinions)

 

[KCfromNC]

You speak later of claims I am making. I'm not sure what claims you refer to because I don't recall making any in this thread.

"Your phrasing makes God's creative act sound flippant, which it wasn't."

Sounds like a claim to me. But if you don't claim to know anything about God's creative powers, that's cool too. Strange you'd propose it as an alternative to accepted scientific theory and then admit you can't make claims about it, though.

So, with respect to the scientifically measureable mechanisms that manifested as God created life, my answer would be: I don't know.

If evolutionists were willing to make a similar statement, I would be satisfied with that. If they were to say something like: We know mutation can cause change, but we don't know how much of a role that played in the distribution of species found in the geological data. Mutation might facilitate survival, it might be neutral, it might be detrimental. Over the course of history we don't know which of those three is the larger trend. We don't know the boundaries of such change.

If they said that, I could die happy.

Why would you be happy for them to ignore mountains of evidence and say "we don't know"? Seems like an unusual approach to take just to avoid a challenge to your faith.

How so? I acknowledged the processes are different and so it is proper to give them different names. But are you disagreeing with what I said?

Isn't mineral formation just chemistry? Isn't evolution just chemistry?

Standing on the ground is "just physics". Falling off a building is "just physics". So you shouldn't have any objection to being thrown off a building because it is the same as standing safely on the ground.

Just because two things can be explained with the same sort of model doesn't mean they behave identically. I'm not going to find a cure for cancer if I work to optimize the fuel efficiency of a gasoline engine, even though both are "just chemistry" in the sense you're using it here.

So what specifically do you hope to learn about evolution by studying mineral formation. The mechanisms of inheritance? Differential reproductive success? Selection pressure? Drift? The color of herrings?

If I told you I could propel a Lego car across my desk using rubber bands, you would likely accept that. If I told you I could propel a full-sized locomotive across the U.S. using rubber bands, you'd say, "Prove it." Using a Lego car as my proof wouldn't be sufficient.

Likewise, if someone shows that mutations cause a change in the wing shape of a fruit fly, OK. I'll accept that. If someone claims mutations explain the diversity of all life on earth ... "Prove it."

There's more to it than mutations, so I'm not sure if you're setting up a strawman here or not.

But evolution has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the vast majority of experts in the field. What specific objections do you have that all of them seem to have missed? There's a lot of handwaving here, but nothing to really answer until I can figure out what it is you think is missing.

I didn't ask for every possible alternative, nor did I ask about something which has never been observed.

"but the point is that unless someone can prove it's impossible for two separate evolutionary chains to evolve similar chromosones, such noted similarities are just supposition."

Please provide a specific example of two separate evolutionary chains evolving nearly identical chromosomes. If you can't, what you're asking about is exaclty "something which has never been observed".

But if you're going to just throw random unobserved ideas out there as objections (a creator god mimicing natural processes, identical DNA being evolved through two independent lines of descent, etc), I think my objection to having to disprove pretty much everything under the sun is valid.

Back here in the real world, the competition is between observed testable mechanisms. Evolution by common descent won that battle a long time ago.

So I then ask if anyone has ever looked for similar biological structures (chemistry process B) and found reason to conclude one did not evolve from the other? If so, what would be the criteria for saying similar things did or did not evolve from a common root?

Are you honestly unaware of the evidence in favor of common descent? If so, I'm not sure how can you pretend to have evaluated it fairly.

Or are we back to the idea that we have to disprove made up unobserved and untestable alternatives before accepting a well-evidenced testable model?

At this point all I can conclude is that no one has tried and the criteria doesn't exist.

Looking and not finding is not the same as not looking. You're basically complaining here because common descent has successfully been tested against the evidence. Nice circular thinking : if tested successfully, you complain that people aren't looking hard enough for things to falsify common descent. How do you know? Because they haven't found anything to falsify it yet.

In the mean time, you're ignoring the obvious alternative - that scientists are not engaged in a giant conspiracy to destroy your personal faith in Jesus Christ, but in instead have honestly looked at the data and found that it consistently supports the idea of common descent.

If "species" can't be defined, how can we say evolution explains the descent of species?

Fuzzy boundaries between species is exactly what you'd expect if descent with modification were true.

Some might say that sequencing genomes will get us there someday. Maybe it will. But someday isn't here yet. If that's what we're waiting for, then the claim shouldn't be made.

Do you have any specific problems with research done in this area (e.g. Endogenous retrovirus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia just to pick one specific bit of evidence), or is this just a setup for a god of the gaps argument?

 

[Resha Caner]

It was not my intent to debate whether evolution or creation is the better idea. I wanted to discuss differences in philosophy. I was answering questions because people said they didn't understand my position, and because I was trying to uncover these philosophies myself. The discussion has helped me frame a scenario that I hope will help clear away some of the baggage, so I'll try to give some brief answers to the questions that are hanging out there, and then I want to move on.

Perhaps this is where scientists and creationists part ways. Scientists define their conclusions with reference to the evidence. Creationists define their conclusions with respect to their wishes of how they want the world to be.

I accept your analogy. I understand that underlying structure shapes a distribution. If I used two 8-sided dice rather than two 6-sided dice, the most common roll would be 9 rather than 7. That doesn't really address the point, though. Even though 7 is most probable, there is nothing to determine 7 will be the result. Someone who desires an outcome of 7 can't determine that outcome without weighted dice. If evolution were true, God would not be able to determine the outcome without intervening. Once intervention occurs, the outcome is no longer random.

With respect to your final comment, I'm not sure if I'm supposed to take that seriously. It comes across as an ad hominem, so are you proposing this as a creationist "philosophy"? If so, I don't think you're digging deep enough. A creationist could easily make the same comment about you, and I expect you would dismiss it. That's not what I'm after here. If you could make a statement about the philosophy of the creationist position and creationists reply, "Yes, I agree that describes my philosophy," then this thread has accomplished what I wanted. It doesn't mean you would agree with that philosophy, but just that you can state it. Likewise for the evolutionist position.

 

[Resha Caner]

God is an omnipotent being beyond space and time. For him to create the universe takes no effort at all. It would be no harder for him to create the universe, create an ant, or do nothing. It is very anthropomorphic to think God could rest.

I never said there is no symbolism in what God did. Al Qaeda scheduled their attack for 9/11 because that date was symbolic. Just because it's symbolic, however, doesn't mean it's not historical.

What do you mean by immaterial? As far as I understand it, time is more physical than we first thought, since it can be affected by things like mass/ gravity.

I was asking if you thought time is not a material thing. But the point is getting lost. This originated when you asked how I think creation happened. I was trying to indicate how uncertain the definition of time is. Currently the measure of time is defined based on the cycles of cesium, but cesium didn't exist during the Big Bang. There are many other such things that create a host of circular definitions with respect to time. Measurments of billions of years need to be correlated to something, and that "something" starts to look very nebulous when you dig. Likewise for YEC. The 6000 year number is highly unlikely.

So, based on all the questions I have about interpretation of both scientific data and Biblical records, my answer is, "I don't know what the timeframe was." My personal opinion follows closely with that of Padgett, but it is just that - an opinion.

The Bible isn't a basic standard though.

It's my standard.

It sounds like you are saying it is all opinion... which doesn't give me great hope that you actually care about the truth.

Actually, I was trying to point out that your answer sounded very subjective to me.

If I love someone can be determined through introspection. To find out if someone else loves me I have to see, hear, and feel how they treat me. Experience. I get to know someone by my interaction with them in the physical world.

Yes, and later you restated this, adding "consistent interaction". My reply is: yes, exactly.

Can you give me an example of an experience in favour of God? It is quite hard to talk about it when I'm not sure exactly what type of experience you are thinking of. Can you also give another type of experience you think I could doubt on the same grounds?

My general reply is much the same as your "consistent interaction" statement, but it seems you're asking for something specific. I thought we had already covered that with Word and Sacrament.

I don't know if there is a big difference. I would generally put it down to ignorance, bias, or being uncritical.

I'm ending with this statement because my comment to you is the same as to Loudmouth. I'm not sure this is a serious answer to my question, so I'll post a scenario and let's see what that gets us.

 

[Resha Caner]

Just because two things can be explained with the same sort of model doesn't mean they behave identically. I'm not going to find a cure for cancer if I work to optimize the fuel efficiency of a gasoline engine, even though both are "just chemistry" in the sense you're using it here.

So you don't think the two processes I mentioned are comparable. I'll keep that in mind if I use an example like this again.

But evolution has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the vast majority of experts in the field. What specific objections do you have that all of them seem to have missed? There's a lot of handwaving here, but nothing to really answer until I can figure out what it is you think is missing.

You asked what I wanted quantified. Then you said my standard was too high. Now it's handwaving. OK.

Please provide a specific example of two separate evolutionary chains evolving nearly identical chromosomes. If you can't, what you're asking about is exaclty "something which has never been observed".

There will always be a first time. The whole point of doing a falsification test is that we don't know the outcome. It all starts with a proposal, and I was clear that it was just that - a proposal, not a demonstrated example.

My conclusion is that you are unaware if anyone has looked for this. Further, you appear to say it's not even worth looking. I wonder what falsification tests you would consider worthwhile because I can't tell if this is a serious reply or just defensiveness.

If you honestly think it's not worth looking at, we'll move on.

Are you honestly unaware of the evidence in favor of common descent? If so, I'm not sure how can you pretend to have evaluated it fairly.

Yes, I am aware and this is a common theme to several replies. It's OK to be skeptical as long as you're skeptical of the right things. Being skeptical of this particular data is not acceptable. Message received.

Looking and not finding is not the same as not looking. You're basically complaining here because common descent has successfully been tested against the evidence. Nice circular thinking : if tested successfully, you complain that people aren't looking hard enough for things to falsify common descent. How do you know? Because they haven't found anything to falsify it yet.

As I said, when I asked this question before I got one reply: there was a falsification test attempted for UCA, but most biolgists didn't accept that UCA has passed the test. So, if you are aware of additional falsification tests, please share them. What is the falsification test for common descent?

In the mean time, you're ignoring the obvious alternative - that scientists are not engaged in a giant conspiracy to destroy your personal faith in Jesus Christ, but in instead have honestly looked at the data and found that it consistently supports the idea of common descent.

I've said this several times, but you must have missed it. My faith in Christ does not stand or fall on evolution, just as it doesn't stand or fall on GR, SR, QM, and a host of other scientific theories. Someone can have a saving faith in Christ and still believe in evolution. It just so happens that I don't accept it.

 

[Resha Caner]

So here is my scenario: The consensus of science is that we evolved. At some point in the future we discover the science of abiogenesis and use it to create a new intelligent species with an average lifespan of 100 years. It takes 1 year for the abiogenesis process to complete, and the chances of success are 0.1%.

We tell this new species we are its creator.

How will this species believe our claim given it is possible the species could have evolved?

 

[Loudmouth]

So here is my scenario: The consensus of science is that we evolved. At some point in the future we discover the science of abiogenesis and use it to create a new intelligent species with an average lifespan of 100 years. It takes 1 year for the abiogenesis process to complete, and the chances of success are 0.1%.

We tell this new species we are its creator.

How will this species believe our claim given it is possible the species could have evolved?

What evidence demonstrates that this species evolved?

 

[Loudmouth]

If evolution were true, God would not be able to determine the outcome without intervening. Once intervention occurs, the outcome is no longer random.

That would apply to the roll of dice, the lottery, etc. It would also apply to any entity that we dreamt up on the spot such as Leprechauns or fairies.

It is a throw away claim. It is not specific to anything, and it is supported by nothing.

With respect to your final comment, I'm not sure if I'm supposed to take that seriously. It comes across as an ad hominem, so are you proposing this as a creationist "philosophy"?

An ad hominem would be something like "creationists beat their wives, therefore they can't be right about evolution". I think you need to brush up on your logical fallacies.

A creationist could easily make the same comment about you, and I expect you would dismiss it.

I would do more than dismiss it. I would produce the evidence that backs my claims. That is something that creationists never do. Instead, they repeat their dogmatic religious beliefs over and over as if that substitutes for evidence.

The philosophy of science is to remove as much human bias as possible by relying on empirical evidence instead of human wishes. That is exactly the opposite of creationist philosophy where empirical evidence is thrown out if it contradicts the worldview of the creationist:

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."--Answers in Genesis
The AiG Statement of Faith - Answers in Genesis

If a scientist came out and said, "I will reject any evidence that contradicts my conclusion," would you say that they are following the philosophy of science?

 

[super animator]

Resher Caner, One critical flaw in you thought regarding randomness, just because it's random to us human species doesn't means it's random to you god.

 

[Paradoxum]

I never said there is no symbolism in what God did. Al Qaeda scheduled their attack for 9/11 because that date was symbolic. Just because it's symbolic, however, doesn't mean it's not historical.

You're not using symbolic in the same sense. With 9/11 the date that something actually happened apparently has some sort of extra meaning. On the other hand I'm saying that God didn't rest, it is merely symbolic... not that he rested AND it is symbolic.

I was asking if you thought time is not a material thing. But the point is getting lost. This originated when you asked how I think creation happened. I was trying to indicate how uncertain the definition of time is. Currently the measure of time is defined based on the cycles of cesium, but cesium didn't exist during the Big Bang.

So? As I said before, cesium is just a measure of time, it isn't time itself. Electricity also existed before we had ammeters and voltmeters.

There are many other such things that create a host of circular definitions with respect to time.

Such as? Also, I'm not sure how this answers the question you say you are trying to answer.

Measurments of billions of years need to be correlated to something, and that "something" starts to look very nebulous when you dig. Likewise for YEC. The 6000 year number is highly unlikely.

Well it isn't very nebulous, so I'm not sure where you've been digging. If I remember As far as I know, rocks are dated using radiometric dating. That gets us into the range of billions of years for a start.

The age of the universe uses the standard of the speed of light. The Big Bang is also confirmed by evidence such as the microwave background radiation.

I haven't read up on this stuff in a while, so I'm a bit dusty. There alot of evidence and predictions that turn out to be true that come together to show how old the universe is.

So, based on all the questions I have about interpretation of both scientific data and Biblical records, my answer is, "I don't know what the timeframe was." My personal opinion follows closely with that of Padgett, but it is just that - an opinion.

Considering how well the science has done in figuring out the world works, perhaps it is better to take scientists findings more seriously, considering you are untrained in the field.

It's my standard.

It isn't a serious standard. I also don't believe it is your basic standard. If it was there you would probably live in some delusional land since reason and evidence wouldn't get through to you.

If you say the Bible is your basic standard then you are basically admitting that what your beliefs (as well as your acceptance of the Bible) have little to do with evidence, reason, and experience. They are just something you randomly believe without reason.

Again, I'm not saying you crazy, since I don't think the Bible really is your basic standard... since you don't sound delusional.

Actually, I was trying to point out that your answer sounded very subjective to me.

Okay.

Yes, and later you restated this, adding "consistent interaction". My reply is: yes, exactly.

I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean. You haven't had consistent interaction with God in the same way as with people we know are real. Or if you do have that sort of interaction, you either need to see a doctor or consider yourself a unique prophet of our age.

My general reply is much the same as your "consistent interaction" statement, but it seems you're asking for something specific. I thought we had already covered that with Word and Sacrament.

What is word and sacrament? What have they got to do with experiences of God which can't be just the mind doing funny things. I say funny things, but some of the feelings religious get aren't exactly rare in non-religious people.

I would like something specific that you mean. I may seem quite anti-belief, but I am quite interesting in what you consider to be justified reasons to believe.

I'm ending with this statement because my comment to you is the same as to Loudmouth. I'm not sure this is a serious answer to my question, so I'll post a scenario and let's see what that gets us.

Perhaps what I said was unfair to you, at least considering that it is aimed at a theist.

So here is my scenario: The consensus of science is that we evolved. At some point in the future we discover the science of abiogenesis and use it to create a new intelligent species with an average lifespan of 100 years. It takes 1 year for the abiogenesis process to complete, and the chances of success are 0.1%.

We tell this new species we are its creator.

How will this species believe our claim given it is possible the species could have evolved?

I'm not sure how you think this all happens. Do we tell the first creature this, or do we leave the species alone for a while, and then come back later and tell them?

I assume that there would be a paper trail and documentation on the creation of the species. A lack of fossil and genetic evidence for evolution from anything would also be a problem. A lack of history books documenting their history would be a problem.

Those are just some possibilities. Does that help? You situation seems to over look the evidence for evolution which a fully competent create wouldn't make, such as that nerve to the voice box I said about before.

 

[Resha Caner]

That would apply to the roll of dice, the lottery, etc. It would also apply to any entity that we dreamt up on the spot such as Leprechauns or fairies.

It is a throw away claim. It is not specific to anything, and it is supported by nothing.

I tried to give you some context, but since this still doesn't relate to the context in which my comments were made, that attempt has apparently failed.

An ad hominem would be something like "creationists beat their wives, therefore they can't be right about evolution". I think you need to brush up on your logical fallacies.

An ad hominem is an attack on the person rather than the argument. Your reply could have been taken as mockery, hence an ad hominem. However, I gave you an opportunity to clarify, which I will repeat:

Your statement was, "Creationists define their conclusions with respect to their wishes of how they want the world to be." Is this an honest attempt to represent creationist philosophy?