Human & Ape Inquiry

Speedwell said:

All science is about examining and evaluating evidence. It's the same whether the evidence was produced in an experiment last week or in a volcanic eruption 500 years ago. If the physical laws are known not to have changed, what makes the one observational science and not the other?

Click to expand...

And who observed any of the supposed acts of creation?

inquiring mind said:

You're just being more hyper about your position is all, maybe because you feel like you're in a corner.

Click to expand...

(That's wishful thinking if I ever saw it.)

inquiring mind said:

Sorry, I disagree. One is observing a created process and evaluating it, the other is only interpreting evidence from a process you can't re-create, and know absolutely nothing about.

Click to expand...

LOL! OK, I know you have your reasons. But if you ever get arrested for something I'll be you'll accept CSI findings which exonerate you.

inquiring mind said:

One is observing a created process and evaluating it, the other is only interpreting evidence from a process you can't re-create, and know absolutely nothing about.

Click to expand...

When it comes to evolution, we do know about that process. We observe it happening today and can even test the process directly in lab experiments.

And we have plenty of evidence that this process has been occurring throughout the history of the Earth (insofar as living organisms have existed throughout most of Earth's history).

Now if you're trying to argue that we can't assume that the same process of evolution also occurred in past populations of organisms (even though all evidence suggests it has), then I'd ask for your basis on how one determines how processes occurred in the past and how to determine if they functioned differently than today.

It's fun to see this thread progress and to definitely see how is backing themselves into a corner but not realizing it.
(HINT: It's the OP)

inquiring mind said:

I agree, and have said this many times... at the micro level.


Any evidence at the macro level is weak, because the circumstances have to be reconstructed (historically), using whatever 'available evidence' you have (and how you have interpreted it). Can you actually not detect the difference in this and the 'observable,' and the possible fallibilities associated with it?

Click to expand...

So you say, but what you would have to do is to present evidence that the evolutionary process was not functioning in the past as it does today. Otherwise, the default assumption is that it was functioning and that macroevolution is possible. Yes, it's an assumption if you like (though with more evidence than you appear willing to admit) but it's a working assumption with successful predictive ability and there is really no reason not to take it as such until such time, if any, that contradicting evidence shows up. What do you expect from science? Absolute certainty? You'll never get it.

inquiring mind said:

Speaking of the OP, we need to get back to it. I think everyone was having more fun on topic.

Click to expand...

So you say, but the OP has already been commented on and has been found to be incredibly lacking, especially as a criticism of evolutionary theory.
'Feelings' don't factor into science.

inquiring mind said:

The big question with the support of macroevolution for me is not its mechanisms. Theoretically, they are quite defined in relationship to the great unknown… ‘time,’ and lots of it. But, that much time makes for a lot of weak evidence (surely you won’t argue that).

Click to expand...

Yes, I will argue that.

There are layers and layers of different lines of evidence for a very large amount of time and large scale evolutionary change over that period of time.

What about the time and more importantly, the events over time are you disputing?

inquiring mind said:

Scientists have no problem with the concept of time and space bending, the possibility of anti-matter reactors bending it, worm holes, and the like, making distances and therefore time passage much shorter. But to suggest God doing it on a shorter time scale with creation is considered ridiculous, with the only difference being the operative word ‘God,’ and His omnipotence (no proof you say, when you readily admit science can’t prove anything).

Click to expand...

The problem isn't no proof, and you are kind of right that science doesn't deal in proof, it deals in evidence.

We have evidence that gravity and speed bend time and space. We do not have evidence that God does so.
But even if we ignore that, can you explain how God warping time and space creates millions of years of fossils and genetic remnants of all life descending from a common ancestor.

inquiring mind said:

Some form of that concept could be God’s mechanism for ‘Kind’ (as well as other things), appearing all at once, fully formed, no descent from a last common ancestor

Click to expand...

That set of original kinds would be excellent evidence for special creation. But I've never seen evidence for their existence or even the ability to define detect them.

inquiring mind said:

... and would lay the groundwork for the basic ‘Kind’ barrier I gave you earlier:

1. General rule of thumb is if two things can breed they're the same created kind.
2. If two animals can produce a hybrid, then they're the same kind.
3. The inability to produce offspring doesn't rule out the possibility that animals may be the same kind, as it may be the result of mutations since the Fall.

Click to expand...

Yes I understood it the first time. Can't you see that it doesn't actually present any possible way to detect the kind barrier?

1 and 2 define limitations on how it is possible to test if two species are of a kind... but 3 declares that external factors mean that 1 and 2 do not define the limits of kinds. So you are left with no method of detecting the limit or indeed existence of immutable kinds.

inquiring mind said:

No, let's call it like it is... I'm right.

Click to expand...

Don't be inconsistent. It's unreasonable present a lack of proof as a victory if you also lack proof.

inquiring mind said:

Yes, we know... according to you, all this this came about on its own.

Click to expand...

According to me, I don't know. Doesn't make just assuming my preferences are true reasonable.

inquiring mind said:

Warped time wouldn't necessarily have to affect time for everything. If that's the way God did it, surely he could do it selectively (like a space craft would propell itself by only bending space in front of it with an anti-matter reacter). In that way, each kind could have come about at His selected time of creation, some being a part of lengthier processes (that might have been necessary for some other reason that God didn't want to wait on), and other things not. God made man from the dust of the ground on the 6th Day after animals... wouldn't it have contained remnants of all life forms on the long cycle? Remember, I said its unknown how His time works, and whether or not it was linear for everything.

Click to expand...

Are you proposing all the kinds being created at separate points in time with millions of years of events in between?

inquiring mind said:

No, let's call it like it is... I'm right.

Click to expand...

Let's call it like it is...you're being pedantic.

Neither could you possibly prove to me, with absolute certainty, that you are really related to any relative that you choose. You could show me DNA tests, videos, sworn testimonies, pictures, anything you could think of, and there would still be less than absolute certainty.

Additionally, even if you did show me all of those pieces of evidence, it would still FALL SHORT of the evidence we have already established for common ancestry with chimps and other animals. It really is that profound.

inquiring mind said:

I agree, and have said this many times... at the micro level.

Click to expand...

It's the same process. Evolution wasn't some magically different process in the past.

Any evidence at the macro level is weak, because the circumstances have to be reconstructed (historically), using whatever 'available evidence' you have (and how you have interpreted it). Can you actually not detect the difference in this and the 'observable,' and the possible fallibilities associated with it?

Click to expand...

Once again, this "observable vs historic" science divide is creationist fiction.

Insofar as the relative strength or weakness of evidence is concerned, there is a lot more to it than whether or not something is observed in a lab or based on a past event.

For example, a poorly conducted lab experiment with improper controls could result in extremely weak conclusion. Conversely, reconstruction of past events based on thousands of independent and correlating bodies of evidence could result in a strong conclusion.

It all comes down to the relative weight of the evidence itself, not whether something took place in the past.

I'm suggesting that your process of testing, and your assumptions are not as ironclad as many of you profess over and over again. First, you and science can't determine or recreate the process of the past beyond speculating with present day means (micro observation)... and neither can I.

Click to expand...

"Micro observation" is not a real term. I've noticed you been making up terms as you go. It's more helpful to stick to proper terminology for the sake of ease of communication.

Second, you appear to be doing little more than making a dad-style argument (e.g. "you can't test things from the past! the past might have been different!")

From a purely philosophical perspective science does assume an objective universe. If your argument is that the universe is inherently non-objective then science (whether about the past or present) is irrelevant. You've just rejected science as an epistemological basis for knowledge.

Again, can you not see the fallibilities? Next, I've said this numerous times, I believe there was divine intervention, in which 'time' (not linear time, which is very much a part of evolutionary mechanisms) was possibly used in a way that we do not understand (the unknown you asked about earlier), thereby eliminating all the gradual appearance and transformation of ancestors. In other words Adam hit the ground running, as a man. Not even factoring in the Bible, this just makes makes more sense to me than our great 'to the whatever power' grandparents being a worm or something.

Click to expand...

Here's a question for you then:

Could you tell the difference between an organism that was created out of thin air (via divine intervention) versus an organism that came about via reproduction from a previous generation of organisms?

And if so, how?

inquiring mind said:

Aren't mutations the result of situations... and what difference does it make?

Click to expand...

"Situations" is not a God curse. Not in real life, anyway.

And so precious that you think Georgia and Bodie's essay was scientific!

inquiring mind said:

I presented one article they wrote and it knocked the wind out of you, almost to the point of being hysterical.

Click to expand...

LOL!

Wow - well, I can't expect much more from a person that thinks the bible is 100% true and accurate.

I shall conclude that you could not understand their "science" sufficiently to explain it.

I thought it was very good... and I don't need to prove anything to you; you need to prove something to me.

Click to expand...

No, I really don't - especially when you have all but confirmed that you are not here to learn or accept or change your mind on anything, you are hear to defend to the end your middle eastern Faith.

You're just being more hyper about your position is all, maybe because you feel like you're in a corner.

Click to expand...

Your projection is eclipsed only by you snarkiness, to be sure.
You could have just admitted that you cannot handle the science, but ran with it because it propped up your prejudice.

I will accept your concession - that the YEC claims re: 'evolution' of kinds is wishy-washy ad hoc nonsense, based solely on bible beliefs.

inquiring mind said:

I agree, and have said this many times... at the micro level.


Any evidence at the macro level is weak, because the circumstances have to be reconstructed (historically), using whatever 'available evidence' you have (and how you have interpreted it). Can you actually not detect the difference in this and the 'observable,' and the possible fallibilities associated with it?

Click to expand...

You keep ignoring this for some creationist reason:


Many creationists (and sadly, some biologists) seem to believe that 'macroevolution' is substantively different from 'microevolution.'

Short answer - it isn't, it is just many rounds of microevolution resulting in speciation.

Creationist propaganda site "CreationWiki" states:


Not surprising that such people would lie to their target flock. Surprising that so many take it at face value.

From a reliable source, we see that 'macroevolution' is:




That is, macroevolution is produced via multiple rounds of speciation. Or put another way, macroevolution is a pattern created by multiple rounds of speciation.

Macroevolution is NOT 'an event' that needs to be 're-created.' It is an observed pattern.

Go ahead and keep denying the fact that your concept of macroevolution is bogus.