29+ evidences for macroevolution: the scientific case for common descent

[pitabread]

Does that ruin your game to call theistic evolution creationism?

It's simply not a common usage of the term "creationism" and therefore sows confusion in the discussion. I don't know what the issue is with sticking to common usage of terms.

It does not matter - theistic evolution is still theism as compared to anti theistic evolution like Dawkins.

TBH, there really isn't any such thing as "theistic evolution" or "anti theistic evolution". Science doesn't make claims one way or another about the supernatural and/or theism. Any philosophical ideas people choose to overlay onto scientific theories are merely their own.

Again you are shot down again by Francis Collins when he makes statements like: "God did intend, in giving us intelligence, to give us the opportunity to investigate and appreciate the wonders of His creation. He is not threatened by our scientific adventures."

Please re-read my post. I was speaking specifically of creationist viewpoints particularly Young Earth creationism. Francis Collins is clearly not.

You are also shot down by Bishop Ussher's book written over 500 years ago. Because there is nothing in his book that conflicts with science. You can not get anymore YEC than Ussher. The simple fact is that YEC deals exclusively with the last 6,000 years and they have nothing to say about what happens before we find Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden around 6,000 years ago.

YECists claim the Earth and universe are only 6000 years old, period What you are describing are other types of creationist beliefs.

Perhaps you should read up on what YECs believe: How Old Is the Earth?

Also, when you multi-quote my posts there is no need to reply using separate posts. Just put everything into a single post. It's simpler to reply to that way.

 

[joshua 1 9]

It's simply not a common usage of the term "creationism" and therefore sows confusion in the discussion. Don't know what the issue is with sticking to common usage of terms.

This is a fair question but Collins deals with all of this. In a way that is not substantially different than my perspective on the subject and issue. Collins also uses dashes in the same way I do.

"At BioLogos, we present the Evolutionary Creationism (EC) viewpoint on origins. Like all Christians, we fully affirm that God is the creator of all life—including human beings in his image. We fully affirm that the Bible is the inspired and authoritative word of God. We also accept the science of evolution as the best description for how God brought about the diversity of life on earth.

But while we accept the scientific evidence for evolution, BioLogos emphatically rejects Evolutionism, the atheistic worldview that so often accompanies the acceptance of biological evolution in public discussion. Evolutionism is a kind of scientism, which holds that all of reality can in principle be explained by science. In contrast, BioLogos believes that science is limited to explaining the natural world, and that supernatural events like miracles are part of reality too."

Collins does not want to be associated with other forms of creationism. His web site goes into a lot of detail on this. How is BioLogos different from Evolutionism, Intelligent Design, and Creationism?

Also Collins presents a synergistic view which is the point of my thread on the different paradigms we find when we look at anti theistic evolution vs theistic evolution.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I was speaking specifically of creationist viewpoints particularly Young Earth creationism.

Young Earth Creationism YEC is based on Bishop Usshers book written over 500 years ago. You need to stick to Ussher and ignore the people that do not know what they are talking about. This is why Collins does not want to be associated with any of that. As I am sure that there are evolutionists that you do not want to be associated with.

YECists claim the Earth and universe are only 6000 years old. What you are describing are other types of creationist belief.

Ussher's book is a chronology that begins on the 23 day of October in the year 4004 BC. This is a literal time and a literal place. What happen before this point in time is simply not relevant to the theory. Your science can not falsify Ussher because there is nothing here to falsify what he does not talk about.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

if this suppose evidence will not hold water then the rest should be meaningless too.

That's not how it works. Even if a particular line of evidence didn't hold up, that doesn't automatically invalidate everything else.

so you basically agree that any evidence by itself is meaningless?

Dang! How on earth do you get "evidence by itself is meaningless" from "Even if a particular line of evidence didn't hold up, that doesn't automatically invalidate everything else"? Each piece of evidence stands or falls on its own merit. Do you have a different understanding of this?

 

[pitabread]

Young Earth Creationism YEC is based on Bishop Usshers book written over 500 years ago. You need to stick to Ussher and ignore the people that do not know what they are talking about.

I'm talking about what other people believe. Whether or no they are right is irrelevant with respect to what they think. YECs believe flat-out that the Earth and universe are only ~6000 years old. Period.

Ussher's book is a chronology that begins on the 23 day of October in the year 4004 BC. This is a literal time and a literal place. What happen before this point in time is simply not relevant to the theory.

According to YECism, there was no Earth or universe prior to that date.

Your science can not falsify Ussher because there is nothing here to falsify what he does not talk about.

People do use Ussher's chronology to justify the age of the Earth and universe (~6000 years), whereas science falsifies that notion. Did you not know this?

 

[joshua 1 9]

People do use Ussher's chronology to justify the age of the Earth and universe (~6000 years), whereas science falsifies that notion. Did you not know this?

You work real hard to build yourself a strawman. Bishop Usshers book begins in the year 4004 BC with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Science verifies that this is accurate and true.

Bishop Ussher did not understand Genesis chapter one anymore then you or I understand the Genesis chapter one. He tried to figure it out as best as he could just like we do the best we can today to understand the message that God has for us.

My point is that there is nothing in his book that is not in the Bible. Everything in the Bible has been shown to be true by Science. Everything is true because there is nothing in the Bible that science can show is not true.

According to YECism, there was no Earth or universe prior to that date.

YEC has nothing to say about what takes place before Adam and Eve. We are told in Genesis chapter one verse 2 that: "The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep" Formless and void means that the earth was in a state of ruin. We read this about Israel in Jeremiah 4:23 I beheld the earth, and, see, it was without form, and void; So whatever was here before was now in a state of ruin and waste.

This is like our lives. We are in a state of ruin and then the Light of God shines and He does a work to redeem and to restore us to His plan and purpose.

2 Corinthians 4:6
For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," made His light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

 

[pitabread]

You work real hard to build yourself a strawman.

There's no strawman here. I'm simply pointing out what some people believe. Not sure why you are having difficulty with this.

YEC has nothing to say about what takes place before Adam and Eve.

Sure they do. Here are a couple YEC sites/organizations that very clearly illustrate what they believe. Perhaps you ought to visit them and you find out first hand what they believe for yourself. It's getting weird having to explain YEC beliefs to someone else, so I'm going to end this discussion here.

Statement of Faith: Answers in Genesis
Foundational Principles | The Institute for Creation Research

 

[DogmaHunter]

Theistic evolution is just as valid Creationism as anything else.

lol, no...
it really really isn't.

"Everything evolved from common ancestors through mutation and natural selection and I personally believe that god handpicked a few of the mutations to 'steer' human evolution or set it up in such a way that it would produce humans"

really is not the same as

"God created adam from scratch, then took out a rib and turned it into eve"


To suggest otherwise is beyond ridiculous and delusional

 

[joshua 1 9]

lol, no...
it really really isn't.

"Everything evolved from common ancestors through mutation and natural selection and I personally believe that god handpicked a few of the mutations to 'steer' human evolution or set it up in such a way that it would produce humans"

really is not the same as

"God created adam from scratch, then took out a rib and turned it into eve"


To suggest otherwise is beyond ridiculous and delusional

There are two clear and distinct schools of evolutionary thought. There is the new school of thought refereed to as Evo Devo that explains how the DNA is expressed. Then there is the old school of neo darwinism that pretty much explains nothing.

One school of thought from Harvard professor and anti theist Gould says that IF you were to rewind the tape of evolution and play it all over again you would have a totally different outcome. That is in direct opposition to the school of though that you have all the same elements and all the same conditions and all the same laws so the outcome is going to be pretty much the same anywhere you go in the universe.

 

[tas8831]

That was responded to by the original author and the original TalkOrigins article was updated as a result: A response to Ashby Camp's "Critique"

It's also worth pointing out that having read some of their critique (particularly the parts to do with genetics), they don't make a particularly convincing counter-argument.

For example, in the parts related to molecular biology (i.e. genetics) they resort to the usual argument of claiming that things like pseudo-genes, ERVs, are in fact functional. But then they also leave them self an "out" by claiming that maybe God just put non-functional regions in genomes at the same locus for reasons unknown. The latter which only confirms that life has the appearance of biological evolution.

At another point, they write this in regards to cytochrome c:



and,



What is interesting to me about this is I've actually created phylogenetic trees based on the cytochrome c sequence from various animals. And in doing so, the results fell essentially in line with accepted evolutionary relationships between taxa.

The author is essentially arguing that this would all be illusionary and merely a coincidence if this was a result of independent design. But it again calls into question why God would go out of their way to make life with the appearance and constraints associated with biological evolution.

So, are you really trying to tell us that ad hoc dodges and nit-picky 'criticisms' that generally fail to address the original claims in the first place do NOT actually refute the TO article?

I'm flabbergasted!

 

[joshua 1 9]

Sure they do.

No they do not. I am going by Bishop Ussher's book written over 500 years ago. That way you can not accuse the Bishop of being influenced by modern science. Gerald Schneider goes back even more. He goes back 1000 years to the Great Kabbalah teachers. That way no one can accuse him of being guided by modern science in what he believes.

I am just saying I can defend YEC. I am not going to defend people who claim to be YEC when their beliefs are different from my beliefs. Esp when they reject the GAP theory. Not that GAP has all that much substance but as a hypotheses It fills the GAP between YEC and OEC and ties them together. I am more of a dispensationist but people call on me to explain all of the various Creationist beliefs and that is fine. Science is based on the best explanation we have. We clearly are aware of how inadequate science can be to deal with issues. Still we can only work with what we have to work with.

 

[pitabread]

No they do not.

*sigh*

You're trying to dispute what others believe. Even if you don't agree with what they believe, they still believe it.

There's no argument here.

I am just saying I can defend YEC.

By apparently redefining it in the process...

 

[joshua 1 9]

There's no argument here.

Yes we both agree that creationism has a problem but for the most part you are dealing with pastors with only two years worth of school. Main line denominations pretty much requires you to have a bachelor's degree in Science before they are qualified to get their Doctor of Theology degree. The Catholic church puts a lot of work and study into something before they offer an opinion on the subject.

By apparently redefining it in the process...

Yep and that our job as Christians. Each and every generation has to discover the truth for themselves. Each and every individual has to discover how to apply the Bible to them and their lives.

We should despise the public education system that stifles free thinking and forces people into cubical that are determined by political systems. I do not have to submit to the political system because I do not want or need their money the way institutions of education seems to want their money.

I have said many times the director and principle of my high school both were holocaust survivors. So their method may have been different then what you find in a typical American public school system.

I joined the Methodist Church because my wife is a Methodist. Even though I think the church was abandoning the teachings of John Wesley even while he was still alive.

Redefining the process is exactly what we are to do.