Darwinian evolution - still a theory in crisis.

[Larniavc]

ultimately it's a poor fit because without an ability to generate objective value statements we're all just grasping around in a dark cave and the only imperative is the biological imperative to pass on one's genes by hook or by crook.

I’ll be honest, I do feel worried around people who need an external rather than internal driver to modulate their proclivity for anti social behaviour.

 

[Larniavc]

Ray Comfor

Ray Comfort thinks God designed bananas. I wouldn’t rely too much on what he says.

 

[Larniavc]

I've already stated my counterexample, in the circumstantial historical case for Jesus- resurrection.

I think you are being asked to provide specific examples of circumstantial historical evidence for your interlocutor to critically evaluate.

 

[Larniavc]

In short, irreducible complexity.

What measurements are you using for complexity? I’m unaware of a thing which is irreducibly complex; can you give me and example?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Why does that matter?

Logically, there isn't much to pay attention to.

We're only special to each other. There is no evidence that anyone supernatural or extraterrestrial is paying attention to anything we do.

Sometimes, it depends on the kind of evidence one expects to find and is intent on looking for. I see evidence of the Mark of the Beast everyday I wake up....

 

[Fervent]

I think you are being asked to provide specific examples of circumstantial historical evidence for your interlocutor to critically evaluate.

Given that he's a mythicist, I suspect his ability to unbiasedly evaluate the evidence. Though I've already stated the types of evidence that the case relies upon, which whether he accepts it or not is more than "no" evidence.

 

[The Barbarian]

Ray Comfort thinks God designed bananas. I wouldn’t rely too much on what he says.

That was hilarious. Comfort chose a fruit (Cavendish banana) that had been carefully designed by humans.

 

[NxNW]

I did answer your question. In short, irreducible complexity. So basic that if one part is missing or undeveloped, the system doesn’t function, leaving natural selection with nothing to preserve or act upon.

Except we have many examples that refute this claim.

I can see by your posts that you are related to a banana. LOL

And so are you, just as you're related to a sponge and a caterpillar.

 

[NxNW]

I can't force a horse to drink. Nor can I make a blind man see.

I'd look at actual evidence.

Perhaps you should look at the contributions I have made, as I am not debating against evolution

I mean the collective 'we'. This thread exists because some don't think academic consensus counts for anything.

How do you define evidence? I've already identified several different types of evidence that exist, which demonstrates your cllaim of "no" evidence is false.

Physical? A painting from life? Contemporary records?

This seems thoroughly ignorant of the types of historical evidence that exist for most historical figures, and just shows an unreasonable expectation likely from a lack of familiarity of how historical evidence works.

We know what Caesar looked like and what day he died. You might try reading Gospel Fictions, Who Wrote the Gospels?, and The Bible Against Itself, all by Randel McGraw Helms, for starters.

 

[NxNW]

Sometimes, it depends on the kind of evidence one expects to find and is intent on looking for. I see evidence of the Mark of the Beast everyday I wake up....

Watching the news is certainly a good example of that.

 

[NxNW]

That was hilarious. Comfort chose a fruit (Cavendish banana) that had been carefully designed by humans.

Not to mention the crocoduck.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Watching the news is certainly a good example of that.

I'm not a Dispensationalist. I would hope folks would know that by now. My reasoning is in another academic stream.

One needs much, much more than the current news. Something like World History would be a closer match, even if not being the interpretive key itself or by itself.

I'm not going to say more since this is an 'evolutionary' issues thread.

 

[Fervent]

I'd look at actual evidence.

Uh huh.

I mean the collective 'we'. This thread exists because some don't think academic consensus counts for anything.

So far it's been mostly a single fundamentalist pushing ID claptrap with both Christians and atheists pushing back against him. How others view academic consensus is not relevant to the strong academic consensus against mythicism.

Physical? A painting from life? Contemporary records?

What sort of contemporary records would you expect for an itinerant preacher who died in the most shameful way possible?

We know what Caesar looked like and what day he died. You might try reading Gospel Fictions, Who Wrote the Gospels?, and The Bible Against Itself, all by Randel McGraw Helms, for starters.

I've read more than enough textual criticism from manuscript evidence that I don't need to read atheist polemics, particularly ones that present a false dichotomy between theological treatise and historical document like Gospel Fictions. I prefer to do my historical research personally and not rely on biased opinions.

 

[The Barbarian]

Not to mention the crocoduck.

Ah, yes... While crocs and ducks are both archosaurs, ducks are dinosaurs and only distantly related to crocodiles. However....

What really makes Spinosaurus special are its unique adaptations that may have allowed the dinosaur to hunt underwater. Like crocodiles, Spinosaurus had a long narrow snout with nostrils mid-skull, perfect for submerging. It also had a second pair of openings, likely neurovascular slits that are also found in crocodiles. Spinosaurus had a long neck, like a heron or a stork… Its big feet had flat claws, a structure that may have been useful for paddling. Loosely connected tail bones could have allowed the animal to propel itself forward in water just like a fish, and its densely packed bones resemble those of a penguin.
“It was a chimera: half duck, half crocodile. We don’t have anything alive that looks like this today,” says study co-author Paul Sereno, a vertebrate paleontologist at the University of Chicago.

Sereno, of course, doesn’t mean that Spinosaurus was, literally, a duck-crocodile hybrid. He’s speaking descriptively—referring, for instance, to the flat-bottomed foot claws that it used for moving in the water, and an anatomy adapted for buoyancy.

Kirk Cameron's "Crocoduck" Came Back To Bite Him In The Ass

A few years ago, ex-teen heartthrob Kirk Cameron went on Fox News as a pitchman for young-Earth creationism. Claiming there were no transitional fossils,

gizmodo.com

This would be confusing for people who don't know the difference between analogous and homologous features. But it's fun to see how the real crocoduck took a bite out of Cameron.

Edit: The irony is, Thomas Huxley, over a hundred and fifty years ago, predicted that birds were evolved from dinosaurs, based on the anatomical features of crocodiles and birds.
The Affinity between the Dinosaurian Reptiles and Birds (1870)

 

[The Barbarian]

I did answer your question. In short, irreducible complexity. So basic that if one part is missing or undeveloped, the system doesn’t function, leaving natural selection with nothing to preserve or act upon.

That's an oldie. Most creationists have abandoned the irreducible complexity argument. Show us some feature in an animal that could not evolve. You seem to have mistakenly assumed that irreducible complexity cannot evolve. There are quite a few ways that it does. Would you like to learn about some of them?

I can see by your posts that you are related to a banana. LOL

All eukaryotes (plants and animals included) have a common ancestor. Would you like to see how we know?

 

[Larniavc]

Given that he's a mythicist, I suspect his ability to unbiasedly evaluate the evidence. Though I've already stated the types of evidence that the case relies upon, which whether he accepts it or not is more than "no" evidence.

It is replies like this that give the reader the impression you are unable to point to any specific piece of evidence. It's sometimes called Schrodinger's evidence; it totally exist until it is looked at.

 

[Fervent]

It is replies like this that give the reader the impression you are unable to point to any specific piece of evidence. It's sometimes called Schrodinger's evidence; it totally exist until it is looked at.

Not quite, it's rather that the case depends on recognition of generally accepted facts which a mythicist denies unreasonably. Primarily, it depends on three facts 1)Jesus in all likelihood existed 2) Jesus died by crucifixion and 3) within a very short time a community developed centered on testimony about encounters with the resurrected Christ. It is the centrality of that claim to the community that requires some explanation, and if we hold to ordinary heuristics like Occam's razor and do not discount the possibility of resurrection on a prior basis the best explanation is a genuine resurrection event. However, since the mythicist will not even admit to these limited admissions there is no point in making the full argument.

 

[Larniavc]

Not quite, it's rather that the case depends on recognition of generally accepted facts which a mythicist denies unreasonably. Primarily, it depends on three facts 1)Jesus in all likelihood existed 2) Jesus died by crucifixion and 3) within a very short time a community developed centered on testimony about encounters with the resurrected Christ. It is the centrality of that claim to the community that requires some explanation, and if we hold to ordinary heuristics like Occam's razor and do not discount the possibility of resurrection on a prior basis the best explanation is a genuine resurrection event. However, since the mythicist will not even admit to these limited admissions there is no point in making the full argument.

1)- quite possible, 2)- quite possible, 3)- Occam's razor would say that a supernatural resurrection did not take place when a non-supernatural can explain the facts.

But all this is beside the point. You have repeated a claim that the Bible makes without offering any specific evidence for why we should believe it. Saying that you must not discount the very thing you are claiming you can substantiate really makes not sense at all. Calling 'not discounting' (and therefor taking as fact) the resurrection as a limited admission is wildly inaccurate. You are basically saying that to believe in the resurrection you must first discount the possibility of a supernatural resurrection.

You see the problem here, surely?

 

[Fervent]

1)- quite possible, 2)- quite possible, 3)- Occam's razor would say that a supernatural resurrection did not take place when a non-supernatural can explain the facts.

Occam's razor wouldn't care whether the explanation was "supernaturall" or "non-supernatural", just which explanation requires the fewest ad hoc additions.

But all this is beside the point. You have repeated a claim that the Bible makes without offering any specific evidence for why we should believe it. Saying that you have not discount the very thing you are claiming you can substantiate really makes not sense at all. Calling not discounting (and therefor taking as fact) the resurrection a limited admission is wildly inaccurate. You are basically saying that to believe in the resurrection you must first discount the possibility of resurrection.

I didn't say we must take it as a fact, simply that if we do not discount it out of hand it seems to me to be a genuine occurrence is the simplest explanation with the greatest explanatory value. If we are simply going to assume it is impossible, then there is no point in discussing the evidence because we have already made up our minds. But if we take it as a genuine possiblity, and then apply ordinary heuristic approaches to theory testing without biasing ourselves some genuine resurrection event requires the least ad hoc considerations.

You see the problem here, surely?

I understand why an atheist wouldn't be willing to engage with a discussion of evidence without presumption, especially given the biased categorizations of "natural" vs "supernatural"

 

[AV1611VET]

And since the Bible was written by man and God's creation cannot lie...

Is man God's creation?