• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

How to choose between creation and evolution.

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Site Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,030
7,265
62
Indianapolis, IN
✟594,630.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Does this mean you're going to stop using your own private definition of "Darwinism" or "Darwinian evolution"?

Charles Darwin defined it:

All change in the organic as well as in the inorganic world being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin)​

If you're talking about the origin and nature of existence itself, then sure.

But just for the origin of life on Earth, that's not a metaphysical question. Just a chemical one.

That's a first cause question and it is profoundly metaphysical.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Charles Darwin defined it:

All change in the organic as well as in the inorganic world being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin)​

Very good. As a Christian I am entirely satisfied with it. What Darwin is saying is that the normal operation of the natural world is the result of the action of natural causes. It is the case with all natural phenomena which have been investigated thoroughly and it is a reasonable working assumption that it will hold throughout. What Darwin's statement is, is a reasonable expression of the principle of methodological naturalism upon which science rests.​



That's a first cause question and it is profoundly metaphysical.
If you knew all that much about metaphysics you would understand why Darwin's statement was not a statement of metaphysical naturalism.
 
Upvote 0

AnotherAtheist

Gimmie dat ol' time physical evidence
Site Supporter
Aug 16, 2007
1,225
601
East Midlands
✟146,326.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
I've never directed a negative comment about evolution toward any person. I'm convinced of special creation so the idea of being "unconvinced" about evolution doesn't even come into the picture. I'm incredulous that such a theory even exists.

Given the amount of evidence for evolution, and how simple a theory it is and how much it explains, I'm incredulous that you can be incredulous that such a theory exists.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Charles Darwin defined it:

All change in the organic as well as in the inorganic world being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin)​

That's not the definition of "Darwinian evolution" or "Darwinism" as is commonly used by individuals in discussion.

We've had this conversation before and yet you are still fighting this. You're clearly not interested in being understood because you persist in clinging to private definitions.

That's a first cause question and it is profoundly metaphysical.

The origin of life is not a "first cause" question.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: VirOptimus
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Site Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,030
7,265
62
Indianapolis, IN
✟594,630.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
That's not the definition of "Darwinian evolution" or "Darwinism" as is commonly used by individuals in discussion.

We've had this conversation before and yet you are still fighting this. You're clearly not interested in being understood because you persist in clinging to private definitions.

No, it's an insistence that you own your naturalistic assumptions.

The origin of life is not a "first cause" question.

The origin of life is a first cause question, an obvious one.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
No, it's an insistence that you own your naturalistic assumptions.
I don't think anyone here has ever been shy of asserting our assumption of methodological naturalism.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
No, it's an insistence that you own your naturalistic assumptions.

Science operates by methodological naturalism, this is a given. There's nothing controversial or obtuse about this.

So I'm still not sure what you are arguing about or why you insist on redefining commonly understood terms in these discussions.

The origin of life is a first cause question, an obvious one.

Then you're going to have to describe what you mean by "origin of life" (on Earth), because you again appear to be operating under a private definition.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Site Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,030
7,265
62
Indianapolis, IN
✟594,630.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Science operates by methodological naturalism, this is a given. There's nothing controversial or obtuse about this.

We are talking about Darwinism, not methodological naturalism, your equivocating.

So I'm still not sure what you are arguing about or why you insist on redefining commonly understood terms in these discussions.

No need to redefine anything, which btw, is exactly what your trying to do with methodological naturalism. Your trying to redefine Darwinism as methodological naturalism and it's absurd.

Then you're going to have to describe what you mean by "origin of life" (on Earth), because you again appear to be operating under a private definition.

I did, and you decided to bury it in the stacks. There's one in every thread.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
We are talking about Darwinism, not methodological naturalism, your equivocating.

And "Darwinism" appears to mean something different to you than everyone else. Which is the whole point.

I did, and you decided to bury it in the stacks. There's one in every thread.

Where did you define origin of life? If I missed it in this thread, then by all means point me to it.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: USincognito
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
We are talking about Darwinism, not methodological naturalism, your equivocating.
And you are twisting Darwin's words into an assertion of metaphysical naturalism, so you can use "Darwinism" as a name for it.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
And you are twisting Darwin's words into an assertion of metaphysical naturalism, so you can use "Darwinism" as a name for it.

Exactly. I just don't understand the point, unless like many other creationists he's trying to force discussions about evolution into an atheism/theism debate.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Speedwell
Upvote 0

LordKroak10

Active Member
Mar 8, 2018
125
104
29
NY
✟4,643.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I'm not sure what you mean but if you saying special creation seems legitimate and the, 'theory of evolution', seems false I would agree. I believe in a radical kind of evolution, in the space of 4000 years from the Ark were the predecessors of all the species of mammals, reptiles and birds in all it's vast array. If I have a problem with evolution it's that my issue is not with evolution per se. My differences are at the point of origin.

Where do fossils fit into your radical evolution? Do you believe fossils show us the animals on the Ark, and that what we have now is the result of inconceivably fast evolution in the span of only 4000 years? But that makes no sense, why would the pace of evolution change so drastically? The earth cannot change that much in only 4000 years, so how could so many species on the Ark go extinct, never to have any surviving lineages?
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Site Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,030
7,265
62
Indianapolis, IN
✟594,630.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Where do fossils fit into your radical evolution? Do you believe fossils show us the animals on the Ark, and that what we have now is the result of inconceivably fast evolution in the span of only 4000 years? But that makes no sense, why would the pace of evolution change so drastically? The earth cannot change that much in only 4000 years, so how could so many species on the Ark go extinct, never to have any surviving lineages?
Adaptive evolution can happen in a couple of generations, if it doesn't, it will revert back to the parental form. There are naturalistic mechanisms for certain traits, there is an arctic cod with an antifreeze gene, it's a brand new gene that has coevoved at least four times. The arctic wildlife that has white coats, including the polar bear, all have their family lines to the south, polar bears can still interbreed with Grizzles. Those that emerged from the Ark do have descendants, the vast array of their adapted descendants.
 
Upvote 0

Brightmoon

Apes and humans are all in family Hominidae.
Mar 2, 2018
6,297
5,539
NYC
✟166,950.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Episcopalian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
No one said that evolution doesn’t happen now . You’re still going to have to come up with evidence that the Flood happened before I or any other scientifically literate person will accept that account. The only plausible explanation I see is that of a local flood that got exaggerated
 
  • Agree
Reactions: VirOptimus
Upvote 0

LordKroak10

Active Member
Mar 8, 2018
125
104
29
NY
✟4,643.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Adaptive evolution can happen in a couple of generations, if it doesn't, it will revert back to the parental form. There are naturalistic mechanisms for certain traits, there is an arctic cod with an antifreeze gene, it's a brand new gene that has coevoved at least four times. The arctic wildlife that has white coats, including the polar bear, all have their family lines to the south, polar bears can still interbreed with Grizzles. Those that emerged from the Ark do have descendants, the vast array of their adapted descendants.

You may be confusing phenotypic plasticity with what you call "adaptive evolution." Phenotypic plasticity can happen very quickly, even within an organism's lifetime, and can, over time, become expressed in offspring that are not exposed to the same stressors as their parents. However, these traits are not newly evolved, they are merely expressed from pre-existing genes that are normally turned off in an organism.

You did not address my question concerning fossils. What do you think fossils are, and where do you think they come from? If fossilized animals were on the Ark, what happened to all of the genera with no living descendants? And again, why would the pace of evolution change? If evolution works as quickly as you posit, we would be finding newly evolved species all the time. Animals that we have known about for hundreds of years would be unrecognizable from the first time we saw them.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Site Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,030
7,265
62
Indianapolis, IN
✟594,630.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
You may be confusing phenotypic plasticity with what you call "adaptive evolution." Phenotypic plasticity can happen very quickly, even within an organism's lifetime, and can, over time, become expressed in offspring that are not exposed to the same stressors as their parents. However, these traits are not newly evolved, they are merely expressed from pre-existing genes that are normally turned off in an organism.

I'm not confused, I realize certain traits emerge seemingly at random, their cyclical not adaptive. Darwin's famous finches are not evolving, certain traits are cyclical not adaptive. Adaptive evolution happens, my favorite examples are in the arctic but Australia has some very unique species. They are only beginning to understand how this happens but they are gaining insights. The Crispr gene for instance.

You did not address my question concerning fossils. What do you think fossils are, and where do you think they come from? If fossilized animals were on the Ark, what happened to all of the genera with no living descendants? And again, why would the pace of evolution change? If evolution works as quickly as you posit, we would be finding newly evolved species all the time. Animals that we have known about for hundreds of years would be unrecognizable from the first time we saw them.

The fossil evidence is manipulated and contrived. Perhaps the longest running demonstration was easily the Piltdown fraud. The Piltdown Hoax was the flagship transitional of Darwinism for nearly half a century and it was a hoax. A skull taken from a mass grave site used during the Black Plague matched up with an orangutan jawbone. Even Louis Leakey, the famous paleontologist, had said that jaw didn’t belong with that skull so people knew, long before it was exposed, that Piltdown was contrived.

Leakey mentions the Piltdown skull in his book 'Adam's Ancestors':

'If the lower jaw really belongs to the same individual as the skull, then the Piltdown man is unique in all humanity. . . It is tempting to argue that the skull, on the one hand, and the jaw, on the other, do not belong to the same creature. Indeed a number of anatomists maintain that the skull and jaw cannot belong to the same individual and they see in the jaw and canine tooth evidence of a contemporary anthropoid ape​

He referred to the whole affair as an enigma: In By the Evidence he says 'I admit . . . that I was foolish enough never to dream, even for a moment, that the true explanation lay in a deliberate forgery.' (Leakey and Piltdown)​

The problem was that there was nothing to replace it as a transitional from ape to man. Concurrent with the prominence of the Piltdown fossil Raymond Dart had reported on the skull of an ape that had filled with lime creating an endocast or a model of what the brain would have looked like. Everyone considered it a chimpanzee child since it’s cranial capacity was just over 400cc but with the demise of Piltdown, a new icon was needed in the Darwinian theater of the mind. Raymond Dart suggests to Louis Leakey that a small brained human ancestor might have been responsible for some of the supposed tools the Leaky family was finding in Africa. The myth of the stone age ape man was born.

The Scottish anthropologist Sir Arthur Keith had built his long and distinguished career on the Piltdown fossil. When it was exposed it sent Darwinians scrambling, Arthur Keith had always rejected the Taung Child (Raymond Dart’s discovery) a chimpanzee child. Rightfully so since it’s small even for a modern chimpanzee. Keith would eventually apologized to Dart and Leakey would take his suggested name for the stone age ape man, Homo habilis, but there was a very real problem. The skull was too small to be considered a human ancestor, this impasse became known as the Cerebral Rubicon and Leakey’s solution was to simply ignore the cranial capacity.

"Sir Arthur Keith, one of the leading proponents of Piltdown Man, was particularly instrumental in shaping Louis's thinking. "Sir Arthur Keith was very much Louis's father in science" noted Frida. Brilliant, yet modest and unassuming, Keith was regarded at the time of Piltdown's discovery as England's most eminent anatomist and an authority on human ancestry...a one man court of appeal for physical anthropologists from around the world....and his opinion that assured Piltdown a place on every drawing of humankinds family tree." (Ancestral Passions, Virginia Morell)​

Ever notice that there are no Chimpanzee ancestors in the fossil record? That’s because every time a gracial (smooth) skull, that is dug up in Asian or Africa they are automatically one of our ancestors.

Australopithecus afarensis: AL 288-1
Australopithecus africanus: Taung 1
Lucy a Chimpanzee
Taung Skull not Human-like 26 August 2014

These two are the only Hominid fossils I've seen that are really being passed of as transitional. They both have chimpanzee size brains, with all the features one would expect of a knuckle dragging, tree dwelling ape. What is far more important then finding something indicating a transitional fossil, which they have failed to do, is to understand what the basis of the three-fold of the human brain from that of apes
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Site Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,030
7,265
62
Indianapolis, IN
✟594,630.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I actually think that creationists think evolution happens like in Pokémon. But that isn’t evolution, it’s metamorphosis .
No they realize there are naturally occurring phenomenon. The three fold expansion of the human brain from that of apes is something else entirely.
 
Upvote 0

LordKroak10

Active Member
Mar 8, 2018
125
104
29
NY
✟4,643.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I'm not confused, I realize certain traits emerge seemingly at random, their cyclical not adaptive. Darwin's famous finches are not evolving, certain traits are cyclical not adaptive. Adaptive evolution happens, my favorite examples are in the arctic but Australia has some very unique species. They are only beginning to understand how this happens but they are gaining insights. The Crispr gene for instance.



The fossil evidence is manipulated and contrived. Perhaps the longest running demonstration was easily the Piltdown fraud. The Piltdown Hoax was the flagship transitional of Darwinism for nearly half a century and it was a hoax. A skull taken from a mass grave site used during the Black Plague matched up with an orangutan jawbone. Even Louis Leakey, the famous paleontologist, had said that jaw didn’t belong with that skull so people knew, long before it was exposed, that Piltdown was contrived.

Leakey mentions the Piltdown skull in his book 'Adam's Ancestors':

'If the lower jaw really belongs to the same individual as the skull, then the Piltdown man is unique in all humanity. . . It is tempting to argue that the skull, on the one hand, and the jaw, on the other, do not belong to the same creature. Indeed a number of anatomists maintain that the skull and jaw cannot belong to the same individual and they see in the jaw and canine tooth evidence of a contemporary anthropoid ape​

He referred to the whole affair as an enigma: In By the Evidence he says 'I admit . . . that I was foolish enough never to dream, even for a moment, that the true explanation lay in a deliberate forgery.' (Leakey and Piltdown)​

The problem was that there was nothing to replace it as a transitional from ape to man. Concurrent with the prominence of the Piltdown fossil Raymond Dart had reported on the skull of an ape that had filled with lime creating an endocast or a model of what the brain would have looked like. Everyone considered it a chimpanzee child since it’s cranial capacity was just over 400cc but with the demise of Piltdown, a new icon was needed in the Darwinian theater of the mind. Raymond Dart suggests to Louis Leakey that a small brained human ancestor might have been responsible for some of the supposed tools the Leaky family was finding in Africa. The myth of the stone age ape man was born.

The Scottish anthropologist Sir Arthur Keith had built his long and distinguished career on the Piltdown fossil. When it was exposed it sent Darwinians scrambling, Arthur Keith had always rejected the Taung Child (Raymond Dart’s discovery) a chimpanzee child. Rightfully so since it’s small even for a modern chimpanzee. Keith would eventually apologized to Dart and Leakey would take his suggested name for the stone age ape man, Homo habilis, but there was a very real problem. The skull was too small to be considered a human ancestor, this impasse became known as the Cerebral Rubicon and Leakey’s solution was to simply ignore the cranial capacity.

"Sir Arthur Keith, one of the leading proponents of Piltdown Man, was particularly instrumental in shaping Louis's thinking. "Sir Arthur Keith was very much Louis's father in science" noted Frida. Brilliant, yet modest and unassuming, Keith was regarded at the time of Piltdown's discovery as England's most eminent anatomist and an authority on human ancestry...a one man court of appeal for physical anthropologists from around the world....and his opinion that assured Piltdown a place on every drawing of humankinds family tree." (Ancestral Passions, Virginia Morell)​

Ever notice that there are no Chimpanzee ancestors in the fossil record? That’s because every time a gracial (smooth) skull, that is dug up in Asian or Africa they are automatically one of our ancestors.

Australopithecus afarensis: AL 288-1
Australopithecus africanus: Taung 1
Lucy a Chimpanzee
Taung Skull not Human-like 26 August 2014

These two are the only Hominid fossils I've seen that are really being passed of as transitional. They both have chimpanzee size brains, with all the features one would expect of a knuckle dragging, tree dwelling ape. What is far more important then finding something indicating a transitional fossil, which they have failed to do, is to understand what the basis of the three-fold of the human brain from that of apes

What are you referring to when you call certain traits "cyclical"? Can you provide any examples? Because I have never heard such a term before, and an internet search yields no results. And of course adaptive evolution happens, it's how life has colonized many different areas of the world, but it does not happen overnight. One individual develops a favorable mutation, and then over millions of years that trait is passed on through successful reproduction to the rest of the population until they all have it. This can happen in a few generations within a tiny population exposed to sudden stressors, such as in a laboratory setting, as I have personally induced and seen happen with my own eyes, but real life populations are significantly larger and most often are not exposed to sudden and extreme stressors. They face changes over very long periods of time that eventually will favor one mutation over others.

I am well acquainted with the Piltdown Man scandal and Raymond Dart's work, but the greed and power-lust of a select group of people does not, by any stretch of imagination, invalidate the fossil record. Human evolution is still something we are working to figure out, and we don't have all the answers yet. We will some day, but to claim that the fossil record is untrustworthy just because we haven't found one particular answer yet is absurd. Since human evolution is a topic that we do not have solid consensus of, let's look at birds instead. The fossil record shows very clear links between coelurosaurian theropod dinosaurs and modern day birds. Everything from the development and increasing complexity of feathers, to the development of lightweight bones and bipedal posture, to transitional specimens such as Archaeopteryx, and even behavioral traits like nest building and brooding. To suggest that all of this has been "manipulated and contrived" is the point of view of a conspiracy theorist, not a scientist.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: USincognito
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Site Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,030
7,265
62
Indianapolis, IN
✟594,630.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
What are you referring to when you call certain traits "cyclical"? Can you provide any examples? Because I have never heard such a term before, and an internet search yields no results. And of course adaptive evolution happens, it's how life has colonized many different areas of the world, but it does not happen overnight. One individual develops a favorable mutation, and then over millions of years that trait is passed on through successful reproduction to the rest of the population until they all have it. This can happen in a few generations within a tiny population exposed to sudden stressors, such as in a laboratory setting, as I have personally induced and seen happen with my own eyes, but real life populations are significantly larger and most often are not exposed to sudden and extreme stressors. They face changes over very long periods of time that eventually will favor one mutation over others.

Mutations have nothing to do with it.

I am well acquainted with the Piltdown Man scandal and Raymond Dart's work, but the greed and power-lust of a select group of people does not, by any stretch of imagination, invalidate the fossil record. Human evolution is still something we are working to figure out, and we don't have all the answers yet. We will some day, but to claim that the fossil record is untrustworthy just because we haven't found one particular answer yet is absurd. Since human evolution is a topic that we do not have solid consensus of, let's look at birds instead. The fossil record shows very clear links between coelurosaurian theropod dinosaurs and modern day birds. Everything from the development and increasing complexity of feathers, to the development of lightweight bones and bipedal posture, to transitional specimens such as Archaeopteryx, and even behavioral traits like nest building and brooding. To suggest that all of this has been "manipulated and contrived" is the point of view of a conspiracy theorist, not a scientist.

I'm talking about hominid fossils, most of the rest don't interest me.
 
Upvote 0