Evolution is an ancient Creation dogma

lifepsyop · Aug 17, 2018

pitabread said:
The latter isn't true at all. You're more than welcome to question the validity of evolution. The problem is that nobody has come up with a scientific alternative that has the same level of explanatory power. Anyone who could do that would probably win a Nobel Prize.

No. Alternative paths of inquiry are simply out of philosophical bounds of the institutions.

For example.
Origin of Life studies have struggled to produce convincing naturalistic explanations, , yet at no time has a natural cause been allowed to be questioned. The more honest scientists will freely state that they can only consider natural operations. The same goes for the origin of all other things at all different stages of the evolution creation story.

pitabread · Aug 17, 2018

lifepsyop said:
No. Alternative paths of inquiry are simply out of philosophical bounds of the institutions.

It depends what you are specifically talking about. If you're talking about supernaturalism, then sure that is out of the bounds of scientific inquiry because supernatural explanations are not scientifically testable.

That said, you could still investigate explanations within the realm of scientific testing. Even if it's arguing for a process that is not currently understood, if you can come up with a mechanism by which said process would occur (even theoretical) and develop testable hypotheses from it then it could be investigated.

This is why when creationists want to argue for the spontaneous creation of fully-formed life I always ask for a mechanism by which such a thing would be possible.

For example.
Origin of Life studies have struggled to produce convincing naturalistic explanations, , yet at no time has a natural cause been allowed to be questioned. The more honest scientists will freely state that they can only consider natural operations. The same goes for the origin of all other things at all different stages of the evolution creation story.

Because again there is no way to test anything outside of natural explanations. How would you scientifically test the supernatural?

lifepsyop · Aug 18, 2018

pitabread said:
It depends what you are specifically talking about. If you're talking about supernaturalism, then sure that is out of the bounds of scientific inquiry because supernatural explanations are not scientifically testable.

That said, you could still investigate explanations within the realm of scientific testing. Even if it's arguing for a process that is not currently understood, if you can come up with a mechanism by which said process would occur (even theoretical) and develop testable hypotheses from it then it could be investigated.

No, this isn't true at all. Forget alternative explanations, you are not even allowed to propose a LIMIT on the natural explanation, i.e. nature's supposed creative powers to explain the origin of things. To suggest natural processes are an insufficient explanation would be a total heresy to these institutions. Again, it's simply outside of the scientific establishment's philosophical parameters. There's no shame in admitting your own dogmatic boundaries.

OldWiseGuy · Aug 18, 2018

lifepsyop said:
No, this isn't true at all. Forget alternative explanations, you are not even allowed to propose a LIMIT on the natural explanation, i.e. nature's supposed creative powers to explain the origin of things. To suggest natural processes are an insufficient explanation would be a total heresy to these institutions. Again, it's simply outside of the scientific establishment's philosophical parameters. There's no shame in admitting your own dogmatic boundaries.

True, the ToE is like a long chain, each link supposedly representing an single evolutionary change. However every other link (or more) is missing and labeled "will explain later", or is simply filled with some theoretical term.

The creation is far too elegant to have occurred in such a haphazard way.

Brightmoon · Aug 18, 2018

John Bowen said:
Quantum physics proves nothing just evolves just on it own. 80 yrs of experiments proven it. What does it state beyond all the jargon How a scientist thinks can control the very atoms in a experiment .The Big Bang theory is also been proven wrong cause scientists have discovered much to there surprise the universe is expanding .

umm the universe is expanding because the Big Bang is still happening. It is an ongoing process.

essentialsaltes · Aug 18, 2018

lifepsyop said:
Hmmmm... I thought Evolution was all about objective science and reason prevailing over faith-based dogmas?
How did these guys already 'know' Evolution was true *before* the advent of scientific theories supposedly demonstrating it? A feeling, a hunch, an educated guess?

How did they know it was true? The obvious evidence.

Here, once again, one should pay close attention to the subtle difference between

evolution

and

the theory of evolution

The first is a fact. The second is the scientific explanation of this fact.

It is helpful to consider the parallel with gravity. Everybody knows that things fall down. Gravity is just a brute fact of reality. But it was Newton who provided a scientific explanation for it - his theory of gravity. And Einstein who crafted an improved explanation - his theory of general relativity.

Aristotle had some prescientific ideas about objects seeking their natural place. This is as relevant to the validity of Newton's work as Anaximander is to Darwin. I.e. not at all.

The fact that things change over time is a truism. The fact that biological species change over time was becoming increasingly clear to natural scientists in the pre-Charles Darwin era. What Darwin did was not to demonstrate that evolution occurred, but to provide the specific mechanisms and explanations for how it occurred. It promoted evolution from just an observation of a fact about the world, to an explanation of that fact. A theory of evolution.

(Lamarck famously proposed his own theory of evolution decades before Darwin. Unfortunately for him, it is not well-supported by the evidence. Darwin did not provide merely an explanation for the fact of evolution, but the best explanation for evolution. One that has only become stronger with additional research and knowledge (of genetics, for instance).)

Aman777 · Aug 18, 2018

TheBear said:
Interesting you say that evolution is an "anti-god theory", when most theists accept the theory.

How do you know they are believers?

Jhn 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

Do they reject God's Truth that Adam was formed from the dust of the ground?

Ophiolite · Aug 18, 2018

Brightmoon said:
and there was a good reason that they called it the enlightenment.

Best post I've seen all month! Loved it.

Heissonear · Aug 18, 2018

lifepsyop said:
No, this isn't true at all. Forget alternative explanations, you are not even allowed to propose a LIMIT on the natural explanation, i.e. nature's supposed creative powers to explain the origin of things. To suggest natural processes are an insufficient explanation would be a total heresy to these institutions. Again, it's simply outside of the scientific establishment's philosophical parameters. There's no shame in admitting your own dogmatic boundaries.

Since I am a product of higher natural science institutions, even within my occupation, what you are stating is alarmingly true.

There is no presenting alternatives in Earth Science departments. It is foolish for any one to disagree with this. The dogma in Academic and Corporation Earth Science departments is only evolution. No alternatives. Alternatives are strictly deemed wacko mental positions. A very look down upon situation whenever alternatives are presented with any seriousness.

This thread is right in target.

And the day has come where evolution is not based on fossil record evidence. The fossil record evidence shows evolution never happened.

The Earth Science departments at universities and Corporations are resistant but will need to face up. The group-think and over promotion of evolution has hit a wall of evidence and only conjecture sustains it.

Heissonear · Aug 18, 2018

essentialsaltes said:
How did they know it was true? The obvious evidence.

Here, once again, one should pay close attention to the subtle difference between

evolution

and

the theory of evolution

The first is a fact. The second is the scientific explanation of this fact.

It is helpful to consider the parallel with gravity. Everybody knows that things fall down. Gravity is just a brute fact of reality. But it was Newton who provided a scientific explanation for it - his theory of gravity. And Einstein who crafted an improved explanation - his theory of general relativity.

Aristotle had some prescientific ideas about objects seeking their natural place. This is as relevant to the validity of Newton's work as Anaximander is to Darwin. I.e. not at all.

The fact that things change over time is a truism. The fact that biological species change over time was becoming increasingly clear to natural scientists in the pre-Charles Darwin era. What Darwin did was not to demonstrate that evolution occurred, but to provide the specific mechanisms and explanations for how it occurred. It promoted evolution from just an observation of a fact about the world, to an explanation of that fact. A theory of evolution.

(Lamarck famously proposed his own theory of evolution decades before Darwin. Unfortunately for him, it is not well-supported by the evidence. Darwin did not provide merely an explanation for the fact of evolution, but the best explanation for evolution. One that has only become stronger with additional research and knowledge (of genetics, for instance).)

You as many have yet to wake up to the fossil record evidence produced by scientific enquiry. The scientific produced evidence shows no detailed fossil evidence that proves evolution has occurred.

Let me be more specific. There is missing any sequence of fossils between lifeforms that shows by morphological details of one lifeform changing into another lifeform over time.

Of any two different lifeforms there is zero fossils showing morphological changes of one lifeform changing into another lifeform over time.

The fossil record shows evolution has not occurred on Earth.

lifepsyop · Aug 18, 2018

essentialsaltes said:
How did they know it was true? The obvious evidence.

When you subscribe to this ancient mysticism that nature has originated all things, then, yes, you begin to see your beliefs reflected in the world all around you.

I am not surprised that evolution seems "obvious" to whoever takes that essential leap of faith and lends such a magical power to nature.

However, if you lack faith in this mystical force intrinsic to nature, then "evolution" is not obvious at all.

essentialsaltes said:
Here, once again, one should pay close attention to the subtle difference between

evolution

and

the theory of evolution

The first is a fact. The second is the scientific explanation of this fact.

Yes, to my last point. Once you are indoctrinated into the nature-creator faith, you see any and all biological changes as evidence of a grand chain of being....

animated forms progressively spilling out into more and more diverse natural creations. You begin to hallucinate fractal evolutionary patterns everywhere and in all things.

essentialsaltes said:
It is helpful to consider the parallel with gravity. Everybody knows that things fall down. Gravity is

just a brute fact of reality. But it was Newton who provided a scientific explanation for it - his theory of gravity. And Einstein who crafted an improved

explanation - his theory of general relativity.

Aristotle had some prescientific ideas about objects seeking their natural place. This is as relevant to the validity of Newton's work as Anaximander is to Darwin.

I.e. not at all.

Not quite sure how this analogy works... It sounds like you're claiming the evolutionary creation story was always a 'brute fact' ? If so, you have some strange ideas.

essentialsaltes said:
The fact that things change over time is a truism. The fact that biological species change over time was

becoming increasingly clear to natural scientists in the pre-Charles Darwin era. What Darwin did was not to demonstrate that evolution occurred, but to provide the

specific mechanisms and explanations for how it occurred. It promoted evolution from just an observation of a fact about the world, to an explanation of that fact.

A theory of evolution.

Here's a question for all the resident Darwinian Mystics:

Could biological change also occur in animal groups with *separate* ancestors? (as opposed to a universal common ancestor)

lifepsyop · Aug 18, 2018

Heissonear said:
Since I am a product of higher natural science institutions, even within my occupation, what you are stating is alarmingly true.

There is no presenting alternatives in Earth Science departments. It is foolish for any one to disagree with this. The dogma in Academic and Corporation Earth Science departments is only evolution. No alternatives. Alternatives are strictly deemed wacko mental positions. A very look down upon situation whenever alternatives are presented with any seriousness.

It is paaaaainfully obvious.... the funniest thing is when, after vehemently denying it, evolutionists get frustrated and finally just come out and admit their dogma... and then double-down on why the tiniest skepticism of their "nature as creator of all things" assumption have no place in scientific discourse.

And then the next day they're back to pretending they're completely free of any dogma, and that they're completely open to "following evidence wherever it leads"... (Just as long as it doesn't lead to the potential limits of natural processes)
hahaha

essentialsaltes · Aug 18, 2018

lifepsyop said:
Not quite sure how this analogy works...

That's clear.

You claimed "Actually the Darwins and other students of the Enlightenment were simply resurrecting an ancient dogma."

This is silly for at least two reasons. Number one, whatever Anaximander may have said, it was hardly dogma. It was an idea, one of many floating around.

Number two, the reason these ideas were floating around were that people were inspired by the evidence around them. Facts that required an explanation. Darwin did not resurrect anything. He came up with a novel theory that better explained the facts than anything that came before (or since).

It sounds like you're claiming the evolutionary creation story was always a 'brute fact' ?

That was not what I was getting at, but facts are always facts, regardless of whether anyone realizes them. Gravity is an obvious fact -- evolution less so.

Here's a question for all the resident Darwinian Mystics:

Could biological change also occur in animal groups with *separate* ancestors? (as opposed to a universal common ancestor)

Not sure what a Darwinian Mystic is, but if I'm understanding you correctly, I don't see why not. I would expect them to have different systems of genetics and different biochemistry. The two (or more) types of living things with different originators would be unable to interbreed.

ArchieRaptor · Aug 18, 2018

lifepsyop said:
No. Alternative paths of inquiry are simply out of philosophical bounds of the institutions.

For example.
Origin of Life studies have struggled to produce convincing naturalistic explanations, , yet at no time has a natural cause been allowed to be questioned. The more honest scientists will freely state that they can only consider natural operations. The same goes for the origin of all other things at all different stages of the evolution creation story.

TheBear · Aug 18, 2018

Aman777 said:
How do you know they are believers?

Jhn 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

Do they reject God's Truth that Adam was formed from the dust of the ground?

Okay. I see where your confusion arises. Let me break it down for you.

Any theist, by definition, believes in the existence of god(s). And, that's not exclusive to any particular religion. If one believes in the existence of supernatural deity(s), they are, by definition, theists.

Where your confusion arises is that you think that anyone who doesn't believe in your particular view of the supernatural, specifically the Christian version, and more narrowed, your specific version of that deity as laid out in your individual and narrow interpretation of that deity, then they don't believe in any god(s) at all. That's like saying that all Muslims are atheists. Also, the fact that most Christians worldwide accept the theory destroys the notion that ToE is an "anti-god" theory.

lifepsyop · Aug 19, 2018

essentialsaltes said:
You claimed "Actually the Darwins and other students of the Enlightenment were simply resurrecting an ancient dogma."

They were. This is obvious to anyone who looks at the history of the Enlightenment and Enlightenment thinkers.

essentialsaltes said:
This is silly for at least two reasons. Number one, whatever Anaximander may have said, it was hardly dogma. It was an idea, one of many floating around.

It was a belief held by many throughout ancient history, in many different variations, but all sharing the core tenet that the physical forms have progressively sprouted from a common source via processes intrinsic to nature. Dogma is a suitable term I think.

essentialsaltes said:
Number two, the reason these ideas were floating around were that people were inspired by the evidence around them. Facts that required an explanation. Darwin did not resurrect anything. He came up with a novel theory that better explained the facts than anything that came before (or since).

For argument's sake, let's say Charles came up with a truly novel theory about how evolution worked. There's still little question that he inherited the fundamental belief system in these mysterious creative powers of nature. Again, his own grandfather was writing poetry on universal common ancestry before Charles was even born.

essentialsaltes said:
Not sure what a Darwinian Mystic is, but if I'm understanding you correctly, I don't see why not. I would expect them to have different systems of genetics and different biochemistry. The two (or more) types of living things with different originators would be unable to interbreed.

Right... it's obvious that biological change could occur in both a universal common ancestry, and SEPARATE ancestry scenario.

And yet, any biological change is presented by evolutionists as independent evidence of universal common ancestry, e.g. because the shape of bird beaks may change, this is evidence that the bird, the giraffe, the fish, the butterfly, and the pine tree all share a common ancestor...

It's an outrageous misdirection that evolutionists have always employed for lack of real arguments. (already used by at least one in this thread)

essentialsaltes · Aug 19, 2018

lifepsyop said:
It was a belief held by many throughout ancient history, ... Dogma is a suitable term I think.

"a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true."

Nope.

For argument's sake, let's say Charles came up with a truly novel theory about how evolution worked.

You don't come off well when you grudgingly accept "for argument's sake" the bleeding obvious.

Right... it's obvious that biological change could occur in both a universal common ancestry, and SEPARATE ancestry scenario.

But the supposition that the two (or more) different forms of life were always separate implies complete independence of their generation. As I said "I would expect them to have different systems of genetics and different biochemistry."

But all life shares the same basic system of genetics and biochemistry. It indicates common ancestry precisely as clearly as a paternity test does.

Aman777 · Aug 19, 2018

TheBear said:
Where your confusion arises is that you think that anyone who doesn't believe in your particular view of the supernatural, specifically the Christian version, and more narrowed, your specific version of that deity as laid out in your individual and narrow interpretation of that deity, then they don't believe in any god(s) at all.

False, since God has advised me to NOT judge but to be a fruit inspector. Until you can come up with a false religious view which AGREES with Genesis, I will limit my study to it. I support what I post with the AGREEMENT of Scripture with science, history and every other discovered Truth. Anything less is a part truth.

TheBear said:
That's like saying that all Muslims are atheists. Also, the fact that most Christians worldwide accept the theory destroys the notion that ToE is an "anti-god" theory.

How do you know who the Christians are? Is your measurement one of being born again Spiritually or just anyone who says I'm a Christian? Scripture tells us to "try the spirits" Remember that most people say they are Christians instead of Muslims or Buddist, etc.

1Jo 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

lifepsyop · Aug 19, 2018

essentialsaltes said:
"a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true."

Nope.

It's right there. I don't know what you're not getting about this. In any case, not going to waste my time on semantics. Call the topic "Evolution is an ancient Creation belief system" if it makes you feel better.

essentialsaltes said:
But the supposition that the two (or more) different forms of life were always separate implies complete independence of their generation.

Uh.. Says who? You? I don't see that implied anywhere. You're forcing that implication in order to pivot to a favored talking point.

Separate Ancestral groups could just as easily imply that a similar generative process took place at different times or in different places.

essentialsaltes said:
As I said "I would expect them to have different systems of genetics and different biochemistry."

But all life shares the same basic system of genetics and biochemistry.

Funny you only seem concerned with their similarities.

And yet different types of animals are so special and unique and distinct in so many countless ways.

Think of how many ways a horse differs from a fly.

But through the evolutionist's eyes, animal uniqueness is merely a virtual cloud wrapped over their sacred shared traits "proving" their shared ancestry. It's an insight into the tunnel-vision evolutionists have when interpreting the biological world.

essentialsaltes said:
It indicates common ancestry precisely as clearly as a paternity test does.

Uh huh, yes... paternity tests clearly prove horses and flies shared ancestors. What was I thinking?
:rollseyes:

You can make that claim. However, let's not be distracted by the fact that you've already conceded the point that the simple of act of biological change does not support universal common ancestry any more than it does separate ancestry. Yet evolutionists CONSTANTLY pretend that the mere existence of biological change lends special credence to their belief in universal common ancestry, i.e. that lineages of single-cell organisms can eventually evolve into human beings over many generations...

(typing that last description and realizing just how incredible it is that so many of you believe this... What is that quote? "The less men believe in God, the more they will believe in Anything." So true.)

We've all seen it in the "Microevolution vs. Macroevolution" arguments. "Denying macroevolution occurs over time by microevolution is like denying inches will eventually turn into meters on a tape measure!" ... or some variation.

They literally call any and all biological change "evolution" ...

Would you say it's more disingenuous or ignorance on the part of the evolutionists who do this?

essentialsaltes · Aug 19, 2018

lifepsyop said:
you've already conceded the point that the simple of act of biological change does not support universal common ancestry

Right, the conclusion of UCA rests on other evidence.

Evolution is an ancient Creation dogma

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Wake me when it's soup.

Apes and humans are all in family Hominidae.

Stranger in a Strange Land

Christian

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Geochemist and Stratigrapher

Geochemist and Stratigrapher

Regular Member

Regular Member

Stranger in a Strange Land

Lurking

NON-WOKED

Regular Member

Stranger in a Strange Land

Christian

Regular Member

Stranger in a Strange Land

Similar threads