Creation & Evolution ‘Free-for-all’

[Subduction Zone]

Well, thank you for at least acknowledging it. I just find it interesting that scientists in the documentary interpret data and evidence in less than deep time terms, and therefore supportive of creation.

Once again, without evidence they cannot claim that the data supports their beliefs. As scientists they know that they are lying when they do this. Do you know what an ad hoc explanation is? An ad hoc explanation only explains some of the evidence and that same evidence likely shows them to be wrong elsewhere.

You really need to ask yourself is why didn't they approach this topic scientifically?

 

[Astrid]

FWIW, I watched the Todd Wood segment. The funny thing is that Todd Wood's claims in that segment re: mapping physical discontinuity based on fossil skulls is contradicted not just by other creationists but also Todd Wood's own writings: Australopithecus Sediba, Statistical Baraminology, and Challenges to Identifying the Human Holobaramin

The recent discovery and description of Australopithecus sediba proved controversial among creationists after Wood (2010) broke with the majority and proclaimed it human based on an analysis of craniodental characters using statistical baraminology. Since creationists often judge postcranial characters more significant than craniodental characters, a re-analysis of the hominin holobaramin was undertaken using 78 postcranial characters published by Berger, et al. (2010) and 25 characters of the hand published by Kivell, et al. (2011). These character sets, along with subsets of the original craniodental characters evaluated by Wood (2010) were used to calculate baraminic distance correlations (BDC) and multidimensional scaling (MDS). The inconclusive results raise questions about the value of using correlation and clustering methods to identify holobaramins.​

This is another example where I can't just shrug off the knowledge I have (of creationist writings no less!) in the context of that film segment.

Baraminology is based on assuming the conclusion,
and as such is pseudoscience.

 

[Ophiolite]

You learn to be as short as you possibly can be here, often at the expense of being called rude.

Yeah.

 

[inquiring mind]

And there so called "interpretations" are worthless. They are not scientific explanations. And the qualifications of many of those so called scientists are in rather severe doubt.

Many now notable scientists have once been in that situation.

Do you think that it is unreasonable that scientist need to follow the scientific method to claim to be doing science? They were not following the scientific method. Do you know why? Because when creationists follow the scientific method they are shown to be wrong. And they know this. If their beliefs were correct they would not be constantly shown on those very rare exceptions when they did follow the scientific method.

All I know is that they are scientists, well-educated and trained. You seem to discount anything they say as rubbish... shouldn't you first be asking yourself, "what is that they see differently from me, and why?"

 

[Whyayeman]

As I see it the theory of evolution posits a model of creation that does not need a creator. This must be difficult to reconcile with any religion. I have not found convincing evidence of the existence of a creator of the physical world. This is not to deny the existence of such a one; it is just a rejection of the faith arguments I have encountered. (If I found the evidence then I would accept it. That is not faith, of course.)

The issue of the formation of complex forms can be settled in non-religious terms. Biological evolution, the existence of very complex forms, can be explained in Darwinian terms. The assertion that complexity is impossible without divine intervention has no basis beyond the reluctance of some religious groups to accept this possibility.

 

[inquiring mind]

As I see it the theory of evolution posits a model of creation that does not need a creator.

Well put! I have often wanted to say that myself, but I know there will be those who jump all over it if I say it, because many Christians accept both evolution and a Creator. I, for the life of me, have tried to figure out how they recocile the two, but can't.

 

[Astrid]

Many now notable scientists have once been in that situation.


All I know is that they are scientists, well-educated and trained. You seem to discount anything they say as rubbish... shouldn't you first be asking yourself, "what is that they see differently from me, and why?"

Its good to think about what they have to say, for several reasons.

Do you have a simple example to offer?
While I consider it, here's for you-

Consider a Dr. K Wise, PhD paleontology, who ststes:

"Even if all the evidence in the universe
turned against yec, I eould still be yec, as
that is what the Bible seems to indicate".

What is your reaction to, analysis of that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Many now notable scientists have once been in that situation.

You would need to support that with valid examples. What notable scientist refused to use the scientific method?

All I know is that they are scientists, well-educated and trained. You seem to discount anything they say as rubbish... shouldn't you first be asking yourself, "what is that they see differently from me, and why?"

Sorry, they are either not well educated or they are dishonest. I can show that time after time. And all you have to do to show that I am wrong is to find an example where one of these so called scientists properly used the scientific method. It is easy to discount people playing at being scientists. And I understand what they see differently from me and why. The question is why can't they be honest about it. There is a saying that has not been shown to be wrong yet: "There is no such thing as a well educated and honest creationist". They fail either one or the other. I do believe that I explained to you how Dr. Steve Austin got caught lying in his radiometric dating.

Can a scientist lie and still be reliable? I don't think so. That is an unforgivable sin in the sciences. Being wrong at times is to be expected. If one is not wrong sometimes one is not trying hard enough. But either being wrong all of the time or worse yet lying and getting caught at it are not good signs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well put! I have often wanted to say that myself, but I know there will be those who jump all over it if I say it, because many Christians accept both evolution and a Creator. I, for the life of me, have tried to figure out how they recocile the two, but can't.

Because they are educated and at least somewhat honest. Kenneth Miller, a devout Catholic, wrote one of the most used biological textbooks of all time. He has no problem accepting evolution. I do not think that he treats the Adam and Eve story as something that actually happened at all.

 

[pitabread]

All I know is that they are scientists, well-educated and trained. You seem to discount anything they say as rubbish... shouldn't you first be asking yourself, "what is that they see differently from me, and why?"

Education and training by itself isn't the whole story. In theory, it should lend credibility to an individual's claims in a particular field, but it still comes down to the claims themselves.

I work in a credentialed field (professional finance) where 'paper qualifications' can carry a lot of weight. Yet I have known individuals with impressive credentials that were quite frankly incompetent in their jobs.

When you have a big enough pool of professionals in a field, you're going to have outliers.

 

[inquiring mind]

Sorry, they are either not well educated or they are dishonest. I can show that time after time. And all you have to do to show that I am wrong is to find an example where one of these so called scientists properly used the scientific method. It is easy to discount people playing at being scientists. And I understand what they see differently from me and why. The question is why can't they be honest about it. There is a saying that has not been shown to be wrong yet: "There is no such thing as a well educated and honest creationist". They fail either one or the other. I do believe that I explained to you how Dr. Steve Austin got caught lying in his radiometric dating.

Can a scientist lie and still be reliable? I don't think so. That is an unforgivable sin in the sciences. Being wrong at times is to be expected. If one is not wrong sometimes one is not trying hard enough. But either being wrong all of the time or worse yet lying and getting caught at it are not good signs.

Well, you know the old saying, "What do you call someone who graduates last in his class at medical school"... Doctor.

 

[Whyayeman]

Well, there are plenty of professional scientists who are sincerely religious and are completely rigorous scientifically. We would have to ask them how they reconcile the conflicts that must arise.

For me Occam's Razor leads strongly to evolutionary explanations as being simpler than positing a Creator God out of nothing. Scientists tend to prefer the term Principle of Parsimony. They are the same thing. (Let's not get too bogged down about terminology!)

 

[pitabread]

Sorry, they are either not well educated or they are dishonest.

As an example, I just finished watching a couple hours of a professional evolutionary biologist (Dan Cardinale) critiquing the Nathaniel Jeanson book, Replacing Darwin. Jeanson himself holds a PhD from Harvard in cell and developmental biology.

Numerous times during the critique, the Cardinale points out blatant errors in Jeanson's work. And he's left wondering, does Jeanson just not know this stuff or is Jeanson deliberately misleading his audience?

Videos here for anyone who is interested:

 

[Astrid]

Well put! I have often wanted to say that myself, but I know there will be those who jump all over it if I say it, because many Christians accept both evolution and a Creator. I, for the life of me, have tried to figure out how they recocile the two, but can't.

Isn't it hard to find two Christians who interpret everything
the same way?

Evolution doesn't need a creator, to do what?
Make everything 6000 years ago?
All relevant data makes it plain that, say, the cow did not
firstcappesr on earth as is, 6009 years ago.

The Bible says Jesus is a sheep. Don't you reconcile that by saying
it has a meaning beyond the simple statement, which is obviously
not true?

I'm no Christian but I could believe in a God.

Could be there isca God who planned out matter and energy
so well! Just the incredible properties of water, it gets more
amazing the more you know.

Such a God could set things up for life to emerge, and be as
dynamic as everything else in the universe.

What, besides choosing a literal reading of Genesis,
is the problem with reconciling?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, you know the old saying, "What do you call someone who graduates last in his class at medical school"... Doctor.

There are some legitimate scientists that believe in creationism. The problem is that though they follow the scientific method in their own work they never ever follow the scientific method when it comes to creationism. That should raise a huge red flag.

By the way, it is incorrect to believe that events need to be reproducible to apply the scientific method. If God created the world as in the Bible the fact that we cannot create the world does not mean that one cannot analyze the event using science. What one does when doing science is to analyze the data and put one's claim in the form of a testable hypothesis. Real scientists want to know if they are wrong. That is why they put their ideas into a testable form. Creationists . . . not so much. If scientists that are creationists believed their creationist claims as much as their scientific ones they would quickly use the scientific method and develop a testable hypothesis that explains the observations.

 

[Whyayeman]

"Even if all the evidence in the universe turned against yec, I would still be yec, as that is what the Bible seems to indicate."

Dr Wise is perfectly entitled to say that. He is expressing his faith. He is putting the Bible before rational thinking, something I have not been able to do. Actually he is understating his faith; the Bible unequivocally indicates it - not cogently and not consistently - but confidently and absolutely. It is an assertion not amenable to reason. That is fine with Dr Wise and with me as a statement of his faith, not of rigorous science.

 

[Speedwell]

Well put! I have often wanted to say that myself, but I know there will be those who jump all over it if I say it, because many Christians accept both evolution and a Creator. I, for the life of me, have tried to figure out how they recocile the two, but can't.

It's all well understood, based on theology which dates back 2500 years. The short answer is the ontology of causal interaction is much more complex than just the physical forces which move atoms around--the physical forces which govern evolution, the only form of causality which science investigates. Observing that natural forces are entirely adequate to explain evolution (without periodic divide tinkering on the material level) does not deny God's constant causal involvement. Traditional Christians have had not very much trouble with this--creationists are almost all Protestants. A lot of sound theology was thrown out with the bathwater of the Reformation and Sola Scripture has proven an inadequate substitute.

 

[Astrid]

"Even if all the evidence in the universe turned against yec, I would still be yec, as that is what the Bible seems to indicate."

Dr Wise is perfectly entitled to say that. He is expressing his faith. He is putting the Bible before rational thinking, something I have not been able to do. Actually he is understating his faith; the bible unequivocally indicates it - not cogently and not consistently - but confidently and absolutely. It is an assertion not amenable to reason. That is fine with Dr Wise and with me as a statement of his faith, not of rigorous science.

Of course he is free to say what he
wants.
As a statement of faith, he is no match
for Job, but, not bad. The cognitive
dissonance alone must have been
wrenching.
But it gets him an F for integrity.

 

[inquiring mind]

Isn't it hard to find two Christians who interpret everything
the same way?

It sure is.

Evolution doesn't need a creator, to do what?

This is why I can't understand how Christians reconcile evolution with creation.

The Bible says Jesus is a sheep. Don't you reconcile that by saying it has a meaning beyond the simple statement, which is obviously
not true?

I do reconcile it beyond the simple statement... Jesus is the 'Lamb of God,' who paid the price for all sinners, and for me that is the truth.

I'm no Christian but I could believe in a God.

Could be there isca God who planned out matter and energy
so well! Just the incredible properties of water, it gets more
amazing the more you know.

Such a God could set things up for life to emerge, and be as
dynamic as everything else in the universe.

What I can tell you, without sounding too sanctimonious, is sincerely pray and ask for forgiveness and guidance. If you do this, I believe in my heart you will see things in His light for you, whatever it is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It sure is.


This is why I can't understand how Christians reconcile evolution with creation.

Many of them think that God set up things and evolution was how it happened. It is not unreasonable.

I do reconcile it beyond the simple statement... Jesus is the 'Lamb of God,' who paid the price for all sinners, and for me that is the truth.

You did not understand the question. He was asking which parts of the Bible that you interpret literally and which parts do you use some other approach. Clearly Jesus is not a sheep, you seem to agree with that. Interpreting the verse given literally would make Jesus a sheep.

What I can tell you, without sounding too sanctimonious, is sincerely pray and ask for forgiveness and guidance. If you do this, I believe in my heart you will see things in His light for you, whatever it is.

That was not what he asked and your answer was an inappropriate dodge.