Help a (creationist) brother out?

[inquiring mind]

Using deliberately minimising language like "connect-the-dots" to belittle the concept of evidence seems dishonest if you only apply it to situations when your religious preferences are in conflict with science.

Maybe, if that's actually the case... but, sometimes you just have to pull-in the reins on a runaway horse.

 

[Astrid]

So they say.

Using deliberately minimizing language...belittle...evidence...dishonest.

I think someone mentioned that.

 

[inquiring mind]

Using deliberately minimizing language...belittle...evidence...dishonest.

I think someone mentioned that.

They probably did... I've heard it all.

 

[Bradskii]

'Stopped' is the wrong word... it 'started' (microevolution) at creation in the form of variation and adaptation. You used 'stop' in your first question ("Can you give me any evidence for when and why it stops at some given point?"). Since we both agree variation and adaptation doesn't stop going forward (for those that survive), to me the reverse direction was all you could have meant... so instead of correcting I answered that in the reverse direction it stopped at creation, because that's the way I thought you were putting it. You guys generally make hash out of points, a favorite tactic it seems, and it appears that you have may have quickly succeeded with this one for those who aren't following closely. {blank... creation... microevolution} vs. {scientific facts + speculation + connect-the-dots... microevolution}

Then I don't understand your line of thought. Microevolution, when it is used in a scientific context, simply means minor changes to an organism due to coppying errors in the dna. Now that either stops at some point or...it continues. And the small, incremental changes continue until we have a substantial difference between what we started with and what we finish with (and when I say 'finish' I mean at any given point, as changes never stop happening). Even the most minor difference between each generation will become monstrously significant over millions of generations.

Saying that only microevolution occurs, and not macro, is like saying a child only grows up a tiny bit each day - it's insignificant. But after all the tiny changes, we move from an infant to an elderly man. It's like saying that inches exist, but there's no such thing as miles.

 

[Astrid]

Then I don't understand your line of thought. Microevolution, when it is used in a scientific context, simply means minor changes to an organism due to coppying errors in the dna. Now that either stops at some point or...it continues. And the small, incremental changes continue until we have a substantial difference between what we started with and what we finish with (and when I say 'finish' I mean at any given point, as changes never stop happening). Even the most minor difference between each generation will become monstrously significant over millions of generations.

Saying that only microevolution occurs, and not macro, is like saying a child only grows up a tiny bit each day - it's insignificant. But after all the tiny changes, we move from an infant to an elderly man. It's like saying that inches exist, but there's no such thing as miles.

I tried, one time, to explain to my ex- Red Guard
uncle what life in the USA is actually like. Once.

"Thought" is not the right word. Indoctrination into a cult
is not about thinking.

I dont blame him. He invested, and lost, so
much of himself. He cannot permit himself to
see what he really did, who Mao really was.
What he has become.

I dont know that he could mentally survive the collapse
of his rigid brittle construct of reality, to admit to the
bottom of his being that what he fought for is so sadly
mistaken.

 

[inquiring mind]

Then I don't understand your line of thought. Microevolution, when it is used in a scientific context, simply means minor changes to an organism due to coppying errors in the dna. Now that either stops at some point or...it continues. And the small, incremental changes continue until we have a substantial difference between what we started with and what we finish with (and when I say 'finish' I mean at any given point, as changes never stop happening). Even the most minor difference between each generation will become monstrously significant over millions of generations.

Saying that only microevolution occurs, and not macro, is like saying a child only grows up a tiny bit each day - it's insignificant. But after all the tiny changes, we move from an infant to an elderly man. It's like saying that inches exist, but there's no such thing as miles.

I do see the point you’re making, but an infant growing into an adult is just normal aging. A lot of adults transitioning from farm life jobs (that made them physically stronger) to city life jobs (where they may become more sedentary) is a form of microevolution (adaptation & variation). But, the city life eventually changing them into a different physical entity altogether (macroevolution) is just connecting dots that are too widely spaced in my opinion.

 

[Bradskii]

I do see the point you’re making, but an infant growing into an adult is just normal aging. A lot of adults transitioning from farm life jobs (that made them physically stronger) to city life jobs (where they may become more sedentary) is a form of microevolution (adaptation & variation). But, the city life eventually changing them into a different physical entity altogether (macroevolution) is just connecting dots that are too widely spaced in my opinion.

Let's not stretch the analogy too far. Although, come to think of it, we could extend it to the differences in a zygote and a fully grown woman. They are, without a doubt, vastly different entities. Although related. The one has 'evolved' from the other. In such tiny increments as to be totally unobservable in a given time period. You could show a month old foetus to the most expert of paediatricians using the most sensitive and accurate equipment and then show her exactly tbe same foetus an hour later and there would be no discernable difference. But there would have been small, incremental changes. And those changes turn a few cells into a full adult.

Similarly, small changes in any given organism will add up to significant differences given enough time. I don't like falling back on common sense when it comes to science, but surely it is common sense to say that if you keep changing something, however small the changes are, you're going to end up with something different.

And yes, it's extremely difficult to get one's head around the immense amount of time and the enormous amount of changes involved in macroevolution. But say that you're in NY and you roll a pebble along a few inches every day. That pebble will eventually reach the Pacific. There's no doubt about it. It'll be a distant descendent of yours that will roll it the last few inches (it'll take about 25,000 years) but it will get there. Unimaginable, isn't it? But that's a tiny amount of time in evolutionary terms.

You saying that there's only microevolution is like saying 'yeah - you can roll that pebble as much as you want, but you'll never get to the west coast'.

 

[Astrid]

I do see the point you’re making, but an infant growing into an adult is just normal aging. A lot of adults transitioning from farm life jobs (that made them physically stronger) to city life jobs (where they may become more sedentary) is a form of microevolution (adaptation & variation). But, the city life eventually changing them into a different physical entity altogether (macroevolution) is just connecting dots that are too widely spaced in my opinion.

Its all just your opinion.

 

[coffee4u]

You are mistaking the debate of this forum.

It's "Creationism and Evolution" not "Strong Atheism and Christianity".

The assertions of Creationism are much more specific than simply that God exists and he is responsible for Creation.

Assertions about time lines, biology, geology and even physics are relevant to the evidences of science and so isn't just a matter of "neither can prove", it's a matter of extensive evidence on one side and personal conviction on the other.

I am saying the OP's question is along similar lines.

The OP is asking for proof of the impossible. When someone asks for that they should not be surprised when it can't be produced. Asking for the impossible and being told it is impossible is not a vindication that their stance was correct all along it simply means certain things are not possible to prove. If you see a burnt down house that is basically ash you wont be able to reconstruct it from that ash. At best you can use the foundation shape to try and figure out the basic shape but you will never be able to replicate it as it had once been.

 

[Bradskii]

I am saying the OP's question is along similar lines.

The OP is asking for proof of the impossible. When someone asks for that they should not be surprised when it can't be produced. Asking for the impossible and being told it is impossible is not a vindication that their stance was correct all along it simply means certain things are not possible to prove. If you see a burnt down house that is basically ash you wont be able to reconstruct it from that ash. At best you can use the foundation shape to try and figure out the basic shape but you will never be able to replicate it as it had once been.

But the stance is not in dispute. The stance is that there is an evolutionary process. The claim was that God was directly responsible. Which is pretty much a given for all Christians. But I think it was the way it was said which is in dispute. So rather than 'Evolution is the process by which organisms develop (etc etc) and it's my belief that God specifically designed it thus' then there'd be no argument. But 'God did this' smacks of creationism and I think the honest response, in whichever direction the question is asked should be, as you say 'Not that it can be proved one way or another'. Unless, of course, the claim includes something that is verifiably not true (as in creationism).

 

[inquiring mind]

Let's not stretch the analogy too far. Although, come to think of it, we could extend it to the differences in a zygote and a fully grown woman. They are, without a doubt, vastly different entities. Although related. The one has 'evolved' from the other. In such tiny increments as to be totally unobservable in a given time period. You could show a month old foetus to the most expert of paediatricians using the most sensitive and accurate equipment and then show her exactly tbe same foetus an hour later and there would be no discernable difference. But there would have been small, incremental changes. And those changes turn a few cells into a full adult.

Similarly, small changes in any given organism will add up to significant differences given enough time. I don't like falling back on common sense when it comes to science, but surely it is common sense to say that if you keep changing something, however small the changes are, you're going to end up with something different.

And yes, it's extremely difficult to get one's head around the immense amount of time and the enormous amount of changes involved in macroevolution. But say that you're in NY and you roll a pebble along a few inches every day. That pebble will eventually reach the Pacific. There's no doubt about it. It'll be a distant descendent of yours that will roll it the last few inches (it'll take about 25,000 years) but it will get there. Unimaginable, isn't it? But that's a tiny amount of time in evolutionary terms.

You saying that there's only microevolution is like saying 'yeah - you can roll that pebble as much as you want, but you'll never get to the west coast'.

I think the primary disagreement with us is the starting point, for you I suspect it all began as goo, and for me God creating per Genesis 1:26-28 (man from the get-go). I'm sure we would disagree on many other things, understanding of the time involved, etc, but that's another discussion. Over a great deal of time your theory goes through a lot of changes of magnitude (macroevolution); my theory(?) does not include those changes of magnitude, but only variation and adaptation of the created kinds (microevolution).

 

[Bradskii]

I think the primary disagreement with us is the starting point, for you I suspect it all began as goo, and for me God creating per Genesis 1:26-28 (man from the get-go). I'm sure we would disagree on many other things, understanding of the time involved, etc, but that's another discussion. Over a great deal of time your theory goes through a lot of changes of magnitude (macroevolution); my theory(?) does not include those changes of magnitude, but only variation and adaptation of the created kinds (microevolution).

Then for the purpose of this discussion I'll accept the Genesis version of creation. The question still remains. If there are small, incremental changes over a length of time then the sum total of those changes over time would result in a major change from the original creature. And changes from that point would result in even greater changes.

So what is there that would prevent this happening?

 

[coffee4u]

But the stance is not in dispute. The stance is that there is an evolutionary process. The claim was that God was directly responsible. Which is pretty much a given for all Christians. But I think it was the way it was said which is in dispute. So rather than 'Evolution is the process by which organisms develop (etc etc) and it's my belief that God specifically designed it thus' then there'd be no argument. But 'God did this' smacks of creationism and I think the honest response, in whichever direction the question is asked should be, as you say 'Not that it can be proved one way or another'. Unless, of course, the claim includes something that is verifiably not true (as in creationism).

You only think creation can't be true because you hold that God is not true. Atheism as far as I can see only leaves you with one view, that everything came to be through naturalistic means. People who believe in God have a wider range of explanations and possibilities to draw upon. Some do hold to the belief that God used evolution. I disagree with that but that is due to scripture not science.

My post was to the OP who said he was told
"God placed within each species genetic information" and he wanted evidence for this claim and got none. I would be more inclined to say he probably didn't accept the evidence that he was shown or he was talking to a scriptural creationist not a creation scientist.
I am sure there are some in the creation science field who would have some kind of answers, but they still only have the ashes of what once was to study.

 

[Shemjaza]

You only think creation can't be true because you hold that God is not true. Atheism as far as I can see only leaves you with one view, that everything came to be through naturalistic means. People who believe in God have a wider range of explanations and possibilities to draw upon. Some do hold to the belief that God used evolution. I disagree with that but that is due to scripture not science.

Doesn't the existence of evolution accepting Christians demonstrate that your initial statement is false?

(Interestingly there is a group call the Raelians who don't believe in God, but do believe life was created.)

My post was to the OP who said he was told
"God placed within each species genetic information" and he wanted evidence for this claim and got none. I would be more inclined to say he probably didn't accept the evidence that he was shown or he was talking to a scriptural creationist not a creation scientist.
I am sure there are some in the creation science field who would have some kind of answers, but they still only have the ashes of what once was to study.

The problem is that by making declarations about details like genetic information you are making specific claims about things in the physical world.

Claims about the physical world can be tested and evaluated... and so far those kind of claims have either not been coherently defined or not substantiated by evidence.

 

[Bradskii]

You only think creation can't be true because you hold that God is not true.

No. I know creationism is not true because of the evidence. That has zero influence on my belief or lack of belief in God. If I believed in God then I would still know creationism is not true. Creationism is simply a literal reading of the bible. It has no connection with science.

 

[klutedavid]

A few weeks ago, a creationist claimed:

"God placed within each species genetic information which allows the different kinds of plants and animals God created to adapt in various situations and environment."​

I asked for evidence for this claim, no response. I provided a link for a genome database search tool to help this creationist find the evidence he apparently thought existed, to no avail.

Can any creationist provide what your creationist brother was incapable of doing?

Or shall we chalk this u to lame 'winessing'?

They may adapt but they don't do it very well. They all become extinct eventually. I remember an article I read on extinction of species. It stated that, historically, over 99% of species were already extinct.

So it looks like life thrived on this planet for intervals of time, then an extinction event devastated most of the species. Something like five extinction events have been discovered so far. So we wait for the next extinction event. Not something anyone want's to hear.

We are so much more aware now of just how fragile life on this planet is.

The universe is a violent and dangerous place and the earth is truly a goldilocks planet.

But not for long.

 

[coffee4u]

Doesn't the existence of evolution accepting Christians demonstrate that your initial statement is false?

Their belief in God using evolution points to God not being true? is that what you are saying?

I would say it points far more to their need of acceptance within society and there overestimation of educated people.
It could also simply point to the fact that they have not received any sound Christian teaching. I was an a agnostic before I became a Christians so I assumed theistic evolution must be true, but I was lucky enough to get some very good teaching and it completely changed my mind.

(Interestingly there is a group call the Raelians who don't believe in God, but do believe life was created.)

Created by aliens? That still goes back to how did the aliens come to be?

The problem is that by making declarations about details like genetic information you are making specific claims about things in the physical world.

Creation obviously touches on the physical world, although the world as it was created is no more. This is why I said they only have the ashes to work with as does anyone else. Evolution denies that the world has changed radically and then applies new answers to what can be seen, saying what can be seen now is the key to the past. We say now is not the key to the past because the past was radically different. Creation scientists do attempt to answer some things but people like yourself wont accept their answers. That is your choice. Creation is scriptural and based on faith it is not based upon science.

Claims about the physical world can be tested and evaluated... and so far those kind of claims have either not been coherently defined or not substantiated by evidence.

We all have the world to test as it is now. The creation model says the world has gone through radical changes, that what it was created as is no longer. Which is why I said what the OP asked was impossible. Animal kinds like that no longer exist.

If you hold to the belief that God doesn't exist then you have no other option but to go with naturalism. If evolution is your only option then it will be more about how did evolution occur then any thoughts of it being incorrect.

Most of evolution claims are based on certain assumptions. If the assumptions are incorrect then everything built upon them is also incorrect.

 

[Astrophile]

I do see the point you’re making, but an infant growing into an adult is just normal aging. A lot of adults transitioning from farm life jobs (that made them physically stronger) to city life jobs (where they may become more sedentary) is a form of microevolution (adaptation & variation). But, the city life eventually changing them into a different physical entity altogether (macroevolution) is just connecting dots that are too widely spaced in my opinion.

I am not sure what you mean here. Are you talking about individuals moving from farm life to city life and becoming more sedentary as a result, or about the children and grandchildren of farm workers obtaining work in the city and adapting to the more sedentary life? As you ought to know, evolution operates from one generation to another, not in individuals.

It might be more appropriate to think of the adaptations over several generations of urban foxes and squirrels, or of the finches, giant tortoises and iguanas of the Galapagos Islands. Although they have adapted to their different environments, they are still recognisably related to rural foxes and squirrels, or to their South American counterparts.

Another question is what you mean by 'a different physical entity altogether'. For example, although humans, chimpanzees and gorillas are clearly distinct and belong to different genera, we can hardly be regarded as 'different physical entities altogether'; all of us are still apes, and still primates. In the same way a hawk-moth and a peppered moth are distinct, but they are still moths (Lepidoptera), and although moths and ladybirds are different they are both still recognisably insects, and therefore not altogether different physical entities. How do you define an 'altogether different physical entity', and thereby distinguish between microevolution and macroevolution?

 

[Shemjaza]

Their belief in God using evolution points to God not being true? is that what you are saying?

Your statement was "You only think creation can't be true because you hold that God is not true." is rendered false by the existence of evolution accepting Christians.

While the statement "Atheism as far as I can see only leaves you with one view, that everything came to be through naturalistic means." is arguably true, it doesn't specifically imply the theory of evolution or any particular hypothesis of abiogenesis.

I would say it points far more to their need of acceptance within society and there overestimation of educated people.
It could also simply point to the fact that they have not received any sound Christian teaching. I was an a agnostic before I became a Christians so I assumed theistic evolution must be true, but I was lucky enough to get some very good teaching and it completely changed my mind.

How do you justify that?

People accept scientific theories due to the consistent reliability of the methods of science.

Created by aliens? That still goes back to how did the aliens come to be?

I think they believe in an infinite regress in an eternal universe... I don't find it particularly compelling, but their religion's existence creates some interesting diversity in the spectrum of evolution, creation, theism and atheism.

Creation obviously touches on the physical world, although the world as it was created is no more. This is why I said they only have the ashes to work with as does anyone else. Evolution denies that the world has changed radically and then applies new answers to what can be seen, saying what can be seen now is the key to the past. We say now is not the key to the past because the past was radically different. Creation scientists do attempt to answer some things but people like yourself wont accept their answers. That is your choice. Creation is scriptural and based on faith it is not based upon science.

Belief isn't just a matter of choice.

It's also not just a matter of there being no evidence and one guess is as good as another, it's that there is significant evidence that runs directly counter to Creationist assertions about the past.

We all have the world to test as it is now. The creation model says the world has gone through radical changes, that what it was created as is no longer. Which is why I said what the OP asked was impossible. Animal kinds like that no longer exist.

Asserting that supernatural events occurred and in fact left evidence consistent with a naturalistic past is extremely unconvincing.

If you hold to the belief that God doesn't exist then you have no other option but to go with naturalism. If evolution is your only option then it will be more about how did evolution occur then any thoughts of it being incorrect.

No, evolution is an conclusion from evidence... you keep attempting to frame it as a consequence of atheism, despite acknowledging that many of your fellow Christians also accept it.

Most of evolution claims are based on certain assumptions. If the assumptions are incorrect then everything built upon them is also incorrect.

Assumptions like the effectiveness of applying verifiable facts about the universe to evidence left behind.

If you ignore evidence and reasoning, how do you justify any belief? Couldn't someone just use the same argument that all your conclusions are built on faulty interpretations?

 

[inquiring mind]

Then for the purpose of this discussion I'll accept the Genesis version of creation. The question still remains. If there are small, incremental changes over a length of time then the sum total of those changes over time would result in a major change from the original creature. And changes from that point would result in even greater changes.

So what is there that would prevent this happening?

If for the purpose of this discussion you accept the Genesis account, then you are also accepting that every living thing was created and multiplied according to their kind. To me, that seems to rule out changes of magnitude (macroevolution).