Challenging Evolution

[Sanguine]

In fact, it is very narrow minded to assume that C or ID cannot add anything to our understanding of this world.

How can constant appeal to the unfathomable possibly to understanding?

 

[mrversatile48]

How can constant appeal to the unfathomable possibly to understanding?

From www.ucb.co.uk


UCB FORUM
Has God touched your life through The Word For Today daily readings?

Please let us know at the UCB Forum.


05 Aug 2004


Only you can be you


"‘…YOU SHAPED ME FIRST INSIDE, THEN OUT..." PSALM 139:13 (TM)

Do you realize how unique you are?

DNA molecules can unite in an infinite number of ways. The number is 10 to the 2,400,000,000th power. That number is the likelihood that you will ever find somebody exactly like you. If you were to write out that number with each zero being one inch wide, you would need a strip of paper 37,000 miles long.

To put this in perspective, all the particles in the universe are probably less than 10 with 76 zeros behind it – far less than the possibilities of your DNA! Your uniqueness is a scientific fact. When God made you He broke the mould. There has never been, and never will be, anybody exactly like you.

So, why did God make each of us so unique?

Because He loves variety! Just look around – introverts and extroverts, thinkers and feelers, team players and individuals, those who love routine and those who love variety. There is no right or wrong temperament for serving in God’s kingdom; we need all kinds of personalities to balance us, give us flavour, and get the job done!

Your personality will affect how and where you serve God best. Smart woodworkers work with the grain, not against it. When we are forced to serve in a manner that is out of character for us it creates tension, requires extra effort, and usually produces poor results. God made you to be you! When you are you it not only blesses His family, it blesses you too. That is because it feels good to do what God made you to do.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Be encouraged to put your faith, trust & confidence in God, not in finite man

"Let God be true & all men liars"

"Better to trust God than to trust in man..

Better to trust in God than to trust in princes"

 

[Inside Edge]

I've read every post up to this point, I'm going to take a crack at this...

Why do we have to force the issue of which is the better theory? If the data and observations do not clearly define which theory is more reliable, why must be determine which is more reliable? This logic totally stumps me.

No one is "forcing the issue." The data and observations clearly support the TOE and do not support the theories of C and ID. That is why people can (and rightfully so) disqualify at least the theory of C, because the data doesn't support it, it doesn't explain the data, and you can't predict any sort of evidence based on it.

Now, you may fall back on your claim that because the theories of C and ID often accept the TOE, or at least "elements" of evolution, then this means evidence that supports evolution is also evidence that supports the other two - again, because elements of evolution are intertwined with the other two theories.

So bear with me here before you begin itemizing your responses to me, this next part is my main point: I want you to imagine 3 strings or threads. One is blue, one is red, the other is yellow.

Blue = Unique elements of Creationism Theory, Red = Unique elements of ID theory, Yellow = Unique elements of the Theory of Evolution. Ok so far?

Now, the TOE (yellow) has no dependency or elements of the other two, it is just a yellow string, all on its own. Scientists and subscribers to the TOE do not claim any intertwining of the other theories.

Now, as you have said, the C and ID theories may well contain "elements" of each other and the TOE, or even accept most of the TOE. So, let's do that: braid the three strings together to show that in actuality, the theories of C and ID contain "strains" of each other and TOE.

Still with me? We now have a braided "rope."

Now, what people have been trying to illustrate here, and where I think there's some confusion, is that you say if evidence supports the yellow strand (Evolutiuon), it stregthens the other theories too, because they're all braided together, so if you find evidence to bolster one, the whole rope gets strengthened, right?

Well, that's correct only insofar as you insist that the theories MUST be combined or intermingled. Scientifically and logically, this need not be the the case.

Again, we have lots of data which supports TOE, which is the yellow strand in our rope. So science looks at this and says, "ok, the data matches this yellow strand in our rope - the theory of evolution predicted that this evidence must exist, and sure enough, it does." So, we know that the yellow part of the rope (the elements of TOE) are verifiable. The theory holds water, so to speak.

Now, does this mean the other 2 strands of the general theory are also strengthened? No, it doesn't mean that at all. So we take the data - the existing facts - and apply them to the other 2 strands of the rope. The data does not support the aspects of the rope that are from the C and ID theories nearly as often as it supports the yellow strand (Evolution). Furthermore, the red and blue strands (ID and C theories) do not predict the evidence, either.

So our "general" theories of C and ID (the whole rope) break down like this: the only part of the theory that can find scientific evidence to support it is the part that is the same as the TOE. In other words, the only part of the general theory that has any scientific, testable, verifiable, data-supported basis is the strand which is the TOE.

Now a rememinder: you said that C and ID generally contain elements of TOE, so the whole rope represents the theory of C or ID. However, no one claims that the theory of Evolution contains elements of the others.

So, the evidence only supports the yellow strand of the rope. Sure, this might seem as if the evidence is also, by default, strengthening the entire rope. But it's not, actually.As I said, it's only strengthening a specific strand of rope.

So science looks at the theory (the rope), and says: Hmmm...these red and blue strands are not strengthened by the evidence...but the yellow one is. Which means that the red and blue strands are actually either irrelevant, or faulty; either way, the only verifiable one, is the yellow strand."

So you separate the strands and see which ones are supported by the evidence, and which ones explain (predict) the evidence. The yellow one, all on its own, explains the evidence (data, facts, predictions) and said evidence strengthens the theory as well.

The other two (Red and Blue, the elements of the theory apart from TOE), either have no evidence to support them, or they do not explain and predict the evidence (data) nearly as well as the TOE - the yellow strand in the rope. They are false, or mostly false due to these facts (the facts being that these elements of the theory do not explain the data or have supporting evidence). On the other hand, our yellow strain over there explains the data really well, and the data supports the theory, all on its own.

So the only part of the rope that is truly testable, verifiable, and supportable with the current evidence is the yellow strand (TOE).

Without the "elements from the TOE," the other theories have no support. What does it say about theories such as C and ID if they rely on TOE, or the elements of TOE they accept, for evidence?

I think this is why people are getting hung up on the whole "which theory is better" business - it's not correct to claim support for TOE is implicity support for the other two just because the other two incorporate the TOE.

Did any of that make sense?

 

[gluadys]

Good observation and discription of the terms, however, we are still left with less than proof.

Time to stop being vague. Left with less than proof of what? Here we have reference to an observation. To date, no remnant of a terrestrial biped has been found in Cambrian strata. Are you disputing that fact?

Now, how does TOE or TOC or ID explain this fact? Do TOC or ID even attempt to explain this fact?

Multiply that one fact by thousands of similar facts in the fossil record alone. Add thousands of additional facts about living species. Note that TOE explains all of them consistently and coherently.

Meanwhile TOC and ID offer explanations of only some of the facts, and the explanations are often internally inconsistent.

In the view of most rational people, the uncontested power of TOE to explain our observations constitutes overwhelming evidence of its validity.

I do have a problem with people who claim theory to be fact.

Nobody is saying that the theory of evolution is a fact. I am saying that evolution is an observed fact. The theory exists to explain the observation.

Does that need further clarification?

 

[gluadys]

I agree whole heartedly, except that the more I talk to E the more I hear them assert that the TOE is fact.

Once again, slowly.

The theory of evolution is not a fact. It is an explanation of a fact.
The observation of evolution happening is enough to establish that evolution is a fact. The theory is an explanation of the observation.

I really think this is the reason that people cannot seem to sit down and discussion the issue rationally, because both camps make assumptions that should not be made.

Right, and the assumption you are making that ought not to be made is this:--

Stating the obvious (that evolution is a fact) is crossing the line between theory and fact and so stepping into the realm of belief.


This is not true. To assume it is true only shows that either
a) you do not understand the difference between a theory and a fact, or
b) you reject the evidence of observed evolution.

Many here take that to mean that I am a C even after I say that I lean towards ID. In fact, I have very few opinions of this issue, so few that I do not really fit into any of the theory groups. But the E here maintain that because I present questions to their "evidence" I am a C. How do we make that jump without the steryotypes and assumptions that we already know what someone believes.

I did not make that assumption on the basis of questions you presented (in fact you have presented no questions about the evidence for evolution--you have only shrugged it off. ) I made that assumption on the basis of your statements--including the fact that when specifically questioned about your "strain" of ID, your answer was purely creationist and made no reference to ID at all.

My whole arguement stems from the idea that we do not need to argue about the theories, but rather it is possible if we set aside our assumptions, to have an actual discussion, both sides learning something they didn't know and both side applying that new knowledge to what they believe about the theories.

And yet, when I specifically asked about your opinion, you demurred. How can we learn anything about your ideas when you refuse to discuss them?

Why does that create such an emotional debate unless our ideas are based on the emotions of belief system against belief system?

Because, although you think you are being neutral, you are misrepresenting the position of those who support the theory of evolution. People get emotional about having their position misrepresented.

 

[razzelflabben]

No you haven’t. But you have stated fairly directly your opinion that all the theories contain elements of each other, such that there is very little room for disproving one without disproving both the others as well.

That was the position I was referring to. Have I represented that idea fairly?

Actually, that is only an explaination for why I believe that all three are theories, not a statment about what I believe. You have labeled me without knowing what I believe which is why this whole discussion started in the first place. Because Merle assumed to know what I believe without asking what I believe. This is the root of the problem as I see it, a total lack of communication.

In fact, the vagueness of the “original theory” is the reason it cannot be scientifically substantiated. A good scientific theory makes testable predictions through which one can verify whether or not it is valid.

But only one aspect of the theory is not testable. This means that it is a valid explaination for scientific exploration.

Now the first part of your original theory IIRC is that all things are created by God.

There is no way this part of the theory can be substantiated by evidence. There is not one iota of physical evidence anywhere in the universe which says “God made me.” Nor does the universe itself make this statement.

So this is not a scientific assertion at all. It is a statement of faith. Therefore, it cannot be part of any theory which claims to be scientific.

That doesn’t mean that either scientists or non-scientists need to abandon their faith to do science. It just means that science is a way to acquire knowledge of nature, not of God, and that it does not deal with matters of faith.

I agree accept that I think nature does point to God, we simply can't measure that through scientific methods. Just a bit of semantics.

The second part of the “original theory” as you laid it out was:
all creatures reproduce after their kind.

I will point out again that you said “reproduced”; you did not say “created”. Depending on how you define “kind” that can be verified. If you are open to the concept that “cellular organism” is a “kind”, then we can certainly say that all cellular organisms reproduce more cellular organisms.

However, if you insist that God created many different “kinds” independently and that there is a strict barrier between them such that one “kind” (such as a reptile) cannot evolve into another “kind” (such as a bird)—then the second part of the original theory has already been disproved.

So doubtingmerle’s question about zebras is very much to the point. What do you mean by “reproduce after its kind”? What is your definition of a “kind”?

Assuming the “strain” of creationism you personally support is the narrower definition of “kind” we can then say of the original theory that:

statement 1 is a statement of faith and therefore cannot be substantiated by evidence, and
statement 2 has been disproved.

But again, the daily observable evidence supports any definition of kind. It is the inconclusive evidence that cannot be substantated that you claim to be proof. Notice the word and idea of proof, not evidence to support. This is a big difference when trying to establish communication.

So when is creationism going to change its concept of “kinds” to match the evidence? When is it going to stop denying that apes and humans have a common ancestor and are therefore the same "kind"?

When is E going to addmit that there are elements of C that can be supported scientifically? That would probably be the same time, depending on the individual you are talking too.

I just did. See above.

In principle, it can be done. But it hasn’t been done.

And then you introduce the catch-22 that to state the truth that evolution happens is ipso facto to cross the line between theory and fact.

When a fact is a fact, it is not crossing a line into a belief system to say that it is a fact.

And yet you maintain that the TOE is a theory but it is a fact, even though it cannot be proven as a fact because science cannot make a theory a fact. Man, am I getting confused.

That is because most of the papers you have been reading are dealing with various aspects of the theory of evolution, so they quite correctly say they are. The authors all take the fact of evolution for granted and don’t feel it necessary to say in every paper, “Oh by the way, it is a fact that evolution happens. In this paper we are exploring a theory about how it happens.”

And it is the very aspects of the TOE that prove E to be fact that they are commenting on. How exactly does that work. E is a fact because of this evidence that we cannot prove, and is inconclusive?!?

But do you understand that if one has not crossed the line, it is very annoying to be told that what one knows to be a fact is part of a “belief system”?

It is also annoying be be told what you believe then you have never said what you believe. Bottom line, I know why you think I am a C, because my arguements have been against E, that does not make be a C. If one does not want to be assumed to have a belief system of E, then one must avoid making statements that can be assumed to be a belief system.

Hah!... If only they would. See above.

If the theory is correct, it is true. Theory cannot be fully proved. That does not make a theory untrue. It can be true as far as it goes. Furthermore, theory can be proven false. So we do know when a theory should be discarded. That is why the phlogiston theory of fire, the humour theory of disease and the steady state theory of cosmological expansion are no longer taught. They have all been proven false. As has the theory of creationism.

By this explaination, then we are to assume that a theory that is not disproven is fact?

True, but that does not preclude the existence of a fact which is called by the same name.

For comparison: gravity is a fact. How do we know? We see things fall, and we can measure the gravitational attraction between masses. Gravity is also a theory. The theory of gravity explains why things fall down and how gravitational attraction works.

Similarly evolution is a fact. How do we know? We have observed evolution both in nature and in experiments designed to produce change in species. Evolution is also a theory. The theory of evolution explains what causes these changes, the way the mechanism of change works.

But by your definitions of scientific methods, it is still only a theory. Maybe an acceptable theory, but still only a theory.

Agreed
Not fact. Belief.
Yes, known fact.
As in “mammals” or “primates”? Yes, known fact. This is an example of creatures reproducing more of their kind. Mammals produce mammals, not fish or birds. Primates produce primates, not rodents or chiroptera.
Agreed
The evolution of humanity from earlier ancestors is a fact. It is up to you, I suppose, to decide whether you wish to label our ancestors a “lesser creature”.

What proof do you have to support your claim that the theory that our present day humans are ancestors of earlier creatures that have human type qualities, or are you talking about I am decendent from my great great great grandfather? What I have seen that is so called proof does not prove any such thing, instead, it suggests the possiblility, even to the extent of my great great great grandfather.

Theories cannot be fully proven, but they can be substantially validated from the evidence. Evolution has been substantially validated and is considered a well-established theory for this reason.

And the fact of evolution is a direct observation.

Again, what overwhelming proof do you offer, so far, your offerings fall short of overwhelming proof. Now if you want to present evidence that is equivelant to say the law of gravity, then we would also have to look into the mathamatical proof of evolution and then, we might be able to look at evolution as fact, better known as scientific law. Until you can offer such proof, it remains a theory. BTW, I have seen nothing in your presentation of evidence that disproves the theory of C as put forth in the bible.

I believe I already gave you two. But I will repeat the briefer one.

Evolution can be precisely defined as a change in the frequency of alleles from one generation to the next.

I do remember this definition, but based on this definition, there are a lot of wholes that the TOE does not answer and according to your definition of scientific method, this then cannot be a scientific theory.

No, neither your statement nor mine is theory. They are statements of belief. If they were theories they would make predictions which could be tested against the evidence.

The above definition makes no predictions that can be tested, at least any more than the theory of C does. Both provide equal amounts of testable predictions, so what then makes E scientific theory but C not?

As statements of belief they can be neither dismissed, nor accepted as theory.

So now you are saying that E is a belief and not a theory? I would have to disagree with you on that one.

For definition of evolution, see above. For definition of species, at least for the sort of species you are referring to --- the kind that breed sexually, see “biological definition of species.”

Now, let me also point out that generally speaking interbreeding does not produce new species, especially in animals. Interbreeding produces hybrids. But hybrids are not new species. It is very difficult for a breeder to maintain a pure line of hybrids precisely because they are not new species. If allowed to, hybrids will breed freely with other members of the species, and will no longer reproduce to the specifications of the breed.

Some plant species have been known to develop through a two-step process of hybridization + polyploidy (doubling of chromosome number). The doubling of the chromosome number facilitates reproduction and at the same time sets up a barrier against cross-breeding back into the parent species.

In animals the most common means of speciation is the opposite of inter-breeding. It is allopatric speciation—which requires the separation of the species into two groups so that they cannot interbreed.

So then, if the observations cannot prove the theory, what makes the theory proof? Lab experiments? Where observable data is manipulated? By that definition, then it would be possible to say that creation is the result of cloning because we know that cloning is possible we just can't prove that it has happened yet. That would be an interesting theory about how our world has changed, aliens cloned and otherwise genetically altered the creatures on thier planets to create new species and introduced them to earth. It's a theory that is growing on me and as science goes, would be as provable as E since we now can travel into outerspace to look for these aliens.

Yes. Through a comparison of DNA sequences that help to define when novel genes entered the gene pool. Reading DNA is like reading history. In some cases, we can also check our reading of DNA history against fossils preserved in the geological strata.

And the scientists that write the papers that you asked me to read regarding this type of issue, say that it does not provide proof for history cannot be proven. In response to pointing this out to you, you respond, In this case it does? What makes you more knowledgable than the scientist writing the paper? Didn't you admit early on in this discussion that you are not a scientist?

Indeed, belief and science are totally different subject matters. I am quite willing to stop discussing C/ID with any supporter who agrees their position is a matter of faith. It is only if they try to insist their position is grounded in scientific evidence that I have a quarrel with them. Ditto in reverse. Claiming evolution is a belief system when it is actually science will draw me into a discussion, for evolution is NOT a belief system.

The very point I set out making.

There is no reason for evolution to change when the evidence already agrees with it. It is only new evidence that would require change, and nothing I have said here suggests that the theory of evolution could not accommodate new evidence if necessary.

The point I am making is that the theory of evolution will be abandoned if, and only if, a new theory is presented which explains all the evidence better than evolution does. Or explains it all as well, and also explains more.

That theory will not be creationism or ID, for neither of them begins to explain any of the evidence which evolution explains.

See above

So when are creationism and ID going to produce such explanations? So far, they haven’t done so.

My guess is that since theory is open to individual interpretation, C and ID will produce such explanations when the E accept that science does not prove E fact. But again, it is an individual thing, which is the problem with steryotypes, in fact, this entire thread has been so bent on discussing the proofs of E that you don't even have a clue what I believe or what explanations C or ID can offer.

 

[razzelflabben]

how about people who claim that a falsified theory is possible?

Yep, as well as people who claim that a theory is falsified when it isn't.

 

[gluadys]

Why do we have to force the issue of which is the better theory? If the data and observations do not clearly define which theory is more reliable, why must be determine which is more reliable? This logic totally stumps me.

But the data and observations do clearly define which theory is most reliable.

And yet, for each of the theories we discussed here, and each of the papers I read that were recommended to me, I see that the evidence does not fully explain all aspects of any of the theories.

Backwards about again. It is not the job of evidence to explain theories. It is the job of theories to explain evidence.

That is why theories need to be malleable. They have to be able to change to accommodate new evidence. Evidence, OTOH, simply is. It does not change.

It is more than possible to twist the observations to fit into any of the theories. So your point is that E twist the observations to fit into their theory better than the C do?

No, E develop a theory that explains the observations better. It is C who try to force the observations to fit their theory.

If there are differences in the theories, then they certainly add somthing to the TOE especially is similarities occur. In fact, it is very narrow minded to assume that C or ID cannot add anything to our understanding of this world.

The similarities add nothing, because TOE can stand without the help of similarities in TOC or ID. The differences add nothing unless they are supported by evidence. But where there are differences, the evidence supports TOE, not TOC or ID. So the differences add nothing either.

 

[razzelflabben]

Because their hypothesis is essentially "God did it", and it's a fairly fruitless enterprise (not to mention frustrating) to try and show them how they think it happend isn't the case unless God is a cosmic prankster. From what I've seen on these boards, the best we can hope for is that some genuinely un/ill informed people walk away with a better understanding of what evolution is and is not. Hopefull this makes them immune to the likes of Kent Hovind and co.

So now you are claiming that the entire theory of C is "God did it". I really think this proves my point. There is much about C and ID that you do not understand and a simple listening technique might prove interesting.

 

[razzelflabben]

How can constant appeal to the unfathomable possibly to understanding?

It would seem from your posts that there is much you could learn if you started to listen to people rather than argue without knowing what they really believe.

 

[razzelflabben]

I've read every post up to this point, I'm going to take a crack at this...

No one is "forcing the issue." The data and observations clearly support the TOE and do not support the theories of C and ID. That is why people can (and rightfully so) disqualify at least the theory of C, because the data doesn't support it, it doesn't explain the data, and you can't predict any sort of evidence based on it.

Now, you may fall back on your claim that because the theories of C and ID often accept the TOE, or at least "elements" of evolution, then this means evidence that supports evolution is also evidence that supports the other two - again, because elements of evolution are intertwined with the other two theories.

So bear with me here before you begin itemizing your responses to me, this next part is my main point: I want you to imagine 3 strings or threads. One is blue, one is red, the other is yellow.

You are very good at analogies but here is the problem with the analogy, and I believe the core problem is lack of communication which goes back to my original assumptions.

I was talking to my husband and son the other day about the changes presented here on E. The changes to the theory since I was in school studying the theory. I spoke of the explainations given right here on this thread. Both were amazed as was I at how similar the new parts are to the TOC. Doesn't this strike anyone as odd, that the TOE is remarkably similar to the theory they try so hard to disprove and visa versa? I find that odd and interesting all at the same time. I guess that would mean that the real issue we are debating is which came first the chicken or the egg the egg or the chicken or the chicken or the egg?

In other words, the yellow string of E doesn't stand alone any more than the TOC or the TOID. So the entire analogy falls. I really think people on both sides of the issue need to know what they believe as well as what the other camp believes before they can dismiss either. And since, they are theories, they can be individually taylored to the individual puttint the theory forth, which requires even more listening skills.

 

[razzelflabben]

Time to stop being vague. Left with less than proof of what? Here we have reference to an observation. To date, no remnant of a terrestrial biped has been found in Cambrian strata. Are you disputing that fact?

Now, how does TOE or TOC or ID explain this fact? Do TOC or ID even attempt to explain this fact?

Multiply that one fact by thousands of similar facts in the fossil record alone. Add thousands of additional facts about living species. Note that TOE explains all of them consistently and coherently.

Meanwhile TOC and ID offer explanations of only some of the facts, and the explanations are often internally inconsistent.

In the view of most rational people, the uncontested power of TOE to explain our observations constitutes overwhelming evidence of its validity.

Let me answer with a simple question,
What percent of the Cambrian strata has been thouroghly explored? 90%, 60%, 40% 5%, maybe even less? How can we have proof without ample observations?

Nobody is saying that the theory of evolution is a fact. I am saying that evolution is an observed fact. The theory exists to explain the observation.

Does that need further clarification?

Gravity is an observed fact, yet it is still considered theory. Animals procreating after their own kind, is an observable fact, yet it somehow disproves the TOC. How do you explain these controdictions?:

 

[Arikay]

1) define "Kind"

2) Creationism says that animals can't evolve beyond "kind" and that there is some sort of barrier that prevents them from doing so.

3) Provide evidence for that barrier.

If you answered point number 1, you would be doing better than many creations.

 

[razzelflabben]

Once again, slowly.

The theory of evolution is not a fact. It is an explanation of a fact.
The observation of evolution happening is enough to establish that evolution is a fact. The theory is an explanation of the observation.

I thought that gravity was a law of science, not a fact, that is what use to be taught. Now, you are telling me that science has changed the rules to allow for observations to be considered fact, that a law is no longer a law and that theory is no longer theory and that fact is no longer fact. Maybe you should define all these terms for us.

Right, and the assumption you are making that ought not to be made is this:--

Stating the obvious (that evolution is a fact) is crossing the line between theory and fact and so stepping into the realm of belief.

What obvious are we talking about? DNA that the scientists say is not proof? maybe genetic changes that suggest breeding problems down the line? Or is it bones that may or may not be ancestors? What is obvious?

This is not true. To assume it is true only shows that either
a) you do not understand the difference between a theory and a fact, or
b) you reject the evidence of observed evolution.

Don't forget C) that you are wrong.

I did not make that assumption on the basis of questions you presented (in fact you have presented no questions about the evidence for evolution--you have only shrugged it off. ) I made that assumption on the basis of your statements--including the fact that when specifically questioned about your "strain" of ID, your answer was purely creationist and made no reference to ID at all.

Whatever the basis, I assure you you do not know what I believe. Your posts make that obvious.

And yet, when I specifically asked about your opinion, you demurred. How can we learn anything about your ideas when you refuse to discuss them?

Because this is not a discussion about my theory beliefs, but a discussion about what is and is not fact. For me to present my personal beliefs would cloud the issue even more than it currently is. Since I came on this thread, people have been bent on proving my theory wrong rather than listening to my position for discussing all the possibilities. Early on, I had hoped that you and I could have a discussion as such but as time has gone on, I am not so sure anymore. My personal beliefs are very broad in nature.

Because, although you think you are being neutral, you are misrepresenting the position of those who support the theory of evolution. People get emotional about having their position misrepresented.

How am I doing this, I have always said that my objection is to those who claim the TOE to be fact, that I have no issue with those who do not make these claims, so now I am misrepresenting those who support the TOE? I think you need to explain this claim.

 

[Inside Edge]

Doesn't this strike anyone as odd, that the TOE is remarkably similar to the theory they try so hard to disprove and visa versa?

The TOE doesn't try to disprove any other theory. The theory of evolution simply makes predictions, and gives explanations. As it turns out, the data matches up with the TOE.

In other words, the yellow string of E doesn't stand alone any more than the TOC or the TOID

This is simply a false statement. Is is not true. In order to make this statement, you must provide evidence that contradicts something the Theory of Evolution claims to be so.

Both were amazed as was I at how similar the new parts [of the TOE are to the TOC.

You have not understood the second half of my first post. Firstly, for you to claim that there are "new parts of the TOE" in your lifetime, means you must have a very extensive knowledge of the TOE, past and present.

Secondly, similarities between the TOE and the TOC, means absolutely nothing in and of itself. Go back to the rope: regardless of any changes, the only strand or string that has any evidence to support it is the yellow one (TOE). The TOC, as you have stated, is a general theory which has "similarities" to TOE, or in other words, "contains elements" to the TOE. But if you pull out that yellow string, the rest of the rope - the other two elements of the rope, the unique elements of TOC and TID - have no evidence (ie facts) to support them.

Rephrased again: Just because TOC and TID have similarities to (elements of) TOE, does not mean that those elements of TOE become inherent to TOC. Those elements are the TOE, and the data supports (exclusively, I might add) only those elements. So, TOC an TID cannot claim the evidence supports them as well: because without TOE incorporated into the them, the evidence doesn't support what is left.

It's like this:

Let's say you have a theory: The box is blue. Sure enough, we look at the box, and its blue. You theory is fully supported by the facts.

Now I have a theory too: The blue box came from the sky. There's absolutely no evidence to suggest that the box came from the sky. However, I still claim that my theory is just as valid as your theory for 2 reasons:
1. You can't prove to me that it didn't come from the sky.
2. I said the box was blue as well, and it is, so there is evidence to support my theory.

This doesn't make sense. Just because the box is blue and I include that statement in my theory doesn't mean my theory has any evidence to support it. What makes it a different theory is that I theorize it came from the sky. However, there is no evidence for my theory. That the box is blue is only evidence for your theory, which I have included in my theory. If we take the "blue" part out of the theory, it stands on its own, and we're back to your original theory. Mine, on the other hand, is a useless speculation since there's no evidence to support that the box came from the sky, and at this time, we cannot test whether or not it came from the sky.

 

[Sanguine]

It would seem from your posts that there is much you could learn if you started to listen to people rather than argue without knowing what they really believe.

I have listened, they have offered nothing germane (as mrversatile48 so aptly demonstrated) and will frequently resort to outright lying. We're not operating under a utopian ideal system stipulating that all ideas are equal (as they are clearly not), so until they offer something new and valid, there is not point in beating this dead horse.

So now you are claiming that the entire theory of C is "God did it". I really think this proves my point. There is much about C and ID that you do not understand and a simple listening technique might prove interesting.

There really isn't anything to "understand". Creationism is out dated biblical literalism (there are of course some weird and wonderful variations, but they're no more truthful.). ID is a response to evolution by those who realise that the Creationism jig is up. Basically people searching for structures in nature which they believe could not possible evolve (the eye, the Bombardier Beetle, etc). Which is all well and good, but the structures they pick just reflect their lack of ingenuity rather than any flaw in Evolution.

 

[JohnR7]

This is the stereotyping type arguements that both sides use to create an atmosphere of anger and belief system vs. belief system that I object too. Both sides assuming what the other is saying and neither side listening to what is being said.

My experance is that evolutionists tend not to accept or entertain a "sterotype" argurement. The standand response to a statement like this is usually from a evolutionists is: "what do you mean by fact", "what do you mean by error?". At least they want you to give them a example of a fact and a error.

 

[1Trinity3]

My experance is that evolutionists tend not to accept or entertain a "sterotype" argurement. The standand response to a statement like this is usually from a evolutionists is: "what do you mean by fact", "what do you mean by error?". At least they want you to give them a example of a fact and a error.

Hi John,
I'm new to this board.
I have been on other boards before and just love this topic. You are so correct on your analysis of the way Evo's argue.

Trinity

Ignore the smiley thingys... I'm just rying some stuff out here.

 

[1Trinity3]

1) define "Kind"

2) Creationism says that animals can't evolve beyond "kind" and that there is some sort of barrier that prevents them from doing so.

3) Provide evidence for that barrier.

If you answered point number 1, you would be doing better than many creations.

1) Kind... see Genesis chapters 1 and 6.

2) Genesis states that animals will bring forth after their "kind"

3) The Inerrancy of God's Word. If He created them.. then he ought to know.

Wow, I did better than "many creations".

Trinity

 

[pureone]

Hi John,
I'm new to this board.
I have been on other boards before and just love this topic. You are so correct on your analysis of the way Evo's argue.
:

Logically? Using defintions and examples to prevent confusion and backpedaling or loophole ecape routes? Using data? Yes, I would agree with you that I love to discuss that way as well.

We don't entertain arguments that have been proven false and belong on pratt lists.
Since you continue to contradict yourself, John, we always want to know what exactly you mean. 'Cause you do not say what you mean or means what you say.