As an explanation of the existence of man, creation is superior to evolution

[Bradskii]

No need to. The creation account is not proposed as science. Therefore, using science's standards to criticize the creation of man is inappropriate. However, the account must hold up to rational examination. Can you show any of it claims as irrational, or internally inconsistent. Go for it.

But you have claimed that there is an overlap between theology and science. Where is this overlap so that we can examine it?

You are supporting a creation event, so can we overlap the creation of the planet with science or are the two completely incompatible?

 

[Bradskii]

Nice try / won't work.

I wasn't trying anything. You asked a question. Tough luck that you don't like the answer.

 

[pitabread]

Evidence gained from examining contemporary living beings does not support the theory of man evolving from eukaryotes.

Er, we are eukaryotes.

 

[Bradskii]

But you're okay with how we got our moon, aren't you?

I'm sure you have selected one of the ten or so beliefs, and don't "seriously doubt" it?

I normally ignore posts that make no sense. But while I'm waiting for the chicken to cook...What?

 

[AV1611VET]

I normally ignore posts that make no sense. But while I'm waiting for the chicken to cook...What?

Joe: So many disagreements about God. If everybody got their facts straight about Him, then I might join the club.

Fred: But what about all the disagreements as to how we got our moon?

Joe: Who cares?

 

[Bradskii]

Joe: So many disagreements about God. If everybody got their facts straight about Him, then I might join the club.

Fred: But what about all the disagreements as to how we got our moon?

Joe: Who cares?

Ah. Took a couple of readings. But now I understand what you're saying. And...

...yeah, I should have ignored it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ah. Took a couple of readings. But now I understand what you're saying. And...

...yeah, I should have ignored it.

I understand.

 

[expos4ever]

Search "Theory Laden Observations" for articles supporting my position.

You need to support your own position, and not expect us to do your homework for you.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Evidence gained from examining contemporary living beings does not support the theory of man evolving from eukaryotes.

Oh, but it does. We are eukaryotes and we share the genes for cell nucleus construction & structure with all other eukaryotes. Our comparative genomics, cell physiology and biochemistry, embryological development, and anatomical similarities with other extant life, are all consistent with precisely the patterns of relationships predicted by evolution by common descent.

Do you have citations to support the direct observation of speciation?

Sure, here are some:
Evidence from Observed Speciation
Watching speciation Occur: Observations
Speciation Observed - Again
Speciation in a Lab Flask
Speciation of Wasps Observed
8 Examples of Evolution in Action

Of course, kindly tell us what "speciation" really means first.

By all means. Speciation means that the evolution of a population has progressed to the degree that it is considered to represent a different animal to its parent population in some significant respect. Inability or reluctance to interbreed, or the failure to produce fertile offspring are common criteria, but not definitive (and they obviously only apply to sexually reproducing organisms) - there are others, generally used in particular biological contexts.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

OK. So, what does your abiogenesis department have to offer?

Steady and substantial progress in a number of areas, including unexpected discoveries to do with self-assembling and self-organizing chemical and structural systems, self-replicating molecules, self-sustaining chemical cycles, etc., all relevant to life. If you're really interested I can probably find some relevant links.

When one sees a veiled ad hominem it's a sign of an exhaustion of arguments. Any other arguments?

Not so much an ad-homimen as an expression of disappointment.

 

[Frank Robert]

Wait, the OP has actually claimed to be a scientist?

Doesn't anti-scientist count?

 

[expos4ever]

See the fallacy of the argument from consensus. Would atheists accept the fallacious argument that since most humans believe in God that God therefore exists?

I do not believe I am committing this fallacy.

Let's review: You initially claimed that evolution was not good science.

I simply observed that if your claim were true, it would require us to believe something rather implausible - that thousands and thousands of experts have been guilty of doing "bad" science for decades and decades and decades. And we have solid reasons for believing this is not true - the people who have advanced the theory of evolution are highly trained experts.

If I were to say "evolution is true because most regular people believe it is", then I would be guilty of that fallacy.

But I am not saying that - I am saying it is clearly hard to believe that you are right in asserting that evolution is "bad" science, given that so many trained experts disagree with you.

There is a difference, albeit perhaps a tad subtle - the matter of relevant expertise.

Taking your line of reasoning one could defend oneself in court by saying this: "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, if you believe those 100 ballistics experts who testified the deadly bullet came from my gun, you are committing the fallacy of consensus".

And that is clearly not right.

 

[expos4ever]

do you think science constrained to only material causes will ever provide the complete explanation of man's existence?

A complete explanation? No I do not believe a "material cause" explanation will ever provide such a complete explanation. But how does this support your case?

 

[Astrid]

OK. So, what does your abiogenesis department have to offer?
If I appealed to my own authority then my credentials would be germane; I have not so they are not.

When one sees a veiled ad hominem it's a sign of an exhaustion of arguments. Any other arguments?

When someone sees ad homs all about its a sign, all right.

If a person claimed expertise in any field (accounting, sports,
farming, science) then proceeds to demonstrate abject
ignorance of same, then, "germane" or not by the claimants
figuring, it makes said individual appesr to be a phony.

Refusing to identify the claimed expertise just makes it worse,
If, that is, possible.

 

[Astrid]

A complete explanation? No I do not believe a "material cause" explanation will ever provide such a complete explanation. But how does this support your case?

A complete explanation of anything seems unlikely.
But research will turn up information while religions
turn it away.

 

[Astrid]

I do not believe I am committing this fallacy.

Let's review: You initially claimed that evolution was not good science.

I simply observed that if your claim were true, it would require us to believe something rather implausible - that thousands and thousands of experts have been guilty of doing "bad" science for decades and decades and decades. And we have solid reasons for believing this is not true - the people who have advanced the theory of evolution are highly trained experts.

If I were to say "evolution is true because most regular people believe it is", then I would be guilty of that fallacy.

But I am not saying that - I am saying it is clearly hard to believe that you are right in asserting that evolution is "bad" science, given that so many trained experts disagree with you.

There is a difference, albeit perhaps a tad subtle - the matter of relevant expertise.

Taking your line of reasoning one could defend oneself in court by saying this: "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, if you believe those 100 ballistics experts who testified the deadly bullet came from my gun, you are committing the fallacy of consensus".

And that is clearly not right.

Some commit the fallacy of claiming fallacies that are not there.

 

[pitabread]

A complete explanation? No I do not believe a "material cause" explanation will ever provide such a complete explanation. But how does this support your case?

I suspect this goes back to the psychological need for closure I mentioned earlier. Those with high need for closure seek completeness; ambiguity is uncomfortable.

Since science can't and never will provide absolute knowledge, it's viewed as being deficient.

 

[AV1611VET]

We are eukaryotes ...

Are we plants as well?

 

[AV1611VET]

If a person claimed expertise in any field (accounting, sports, farming, science) then proceeds to demonstrate abject ignorance of same, then, "germane" or not by the claimants figuring, it makes said individual appesr to be a phony.

Does that include any atheists who would claim they know the Bible better than any Christians around?

 

[expos4ever]

Some commit the fallacy of claiming fallacies that are not there.

I agree. Sometimes the following sequence occurs:

1. Poster A asserts proposition P and appeals to expert X to justify their belief in P.

2. Other posters discover that expert X actually has a very bad reputation and challenge Poster A by pointing out that X is not a credible source.

3. Poster A accuses these other posters of committing the genetic fallacy - that P is being attacked solely on the basis of "where it came from" and not on the basis of its merits.

But this is not correct. If poster A had provided an actual argument of their own - if they had offered evidence over and above simply appealing to the authority of X, then, and only then, would the genetic fallacy critique apply.

But if A's entire argument rests on the credibility of X as an expert, then we are more than justified in attacking the credentials of X.