Creation/Evolution Fundamental Assumptions

[VehementisDominus]

There's no reason for him to adopt your belief and doctrine (which relates as fiction) that the recording in the bible is unreliable.

Again, what are you even on about?

What does that have to do with anything I said?

 

[Research6]

I have never understood the evolutionists logic:

- Creationism is anti-science because its not observable (couldn't agree more), but -

- Evolution is science.

However, evolution has never been observed.

Have you observed 'humans' evolve from a ''common ancestor''?

No large scale phenotypic change has ever been observed.

So why do evolutionists oppose creationism when they believe in things themselves which are not observable?

 

[Davian]

... The resurrection is evidence God exists, and all the things we saw over time recorded in the record of God.

Is there evidence of the resurrection? or just the bible story?

And even if there was, how can you prove the Christian god did it?

 

[VehementisDominus]

Is there evidence of the resurrection? or just the bible story?

Just the Bible story.

It's the point I've been trying to make over and over again, but I think it just goes over their heads.

They don't seem to realise that you can't use something that's self contained to verify the thing it's contained in. They can't quite grasp the fact that to verify the accuracy of something, you need to verify it externally.

Yet, somehow, to them, their circular logic is flawless, regardless of whether or not it actually verifies the thing they're trying to verify. To them, the Bible could never be wrong, it's the presumption that the Bible is 100% accurate no matter what, they don't need to verify it because they believe it so blindly, anyway.

We could produce a list of a million and one things that the Bible got wrong, or why the Bible is innacurate, with evidence to support every single item on that list, and they'd still blindly believe it.

 

[Greg1234]

Is there evidence of the resurrection? or just the bible story?

He doesn't hold your belief that testimonies given are unreliable. That doctrine may be regarded as fiction.

And even if there was, how can you prove the Christian god did it?

There's only one God.

 

[sabercroft]

Minor adaptations by a program is not evidence against creationism. You dont think you've refuted the creation of your car when you put on your car light do you? You think the dilation of your pupils invalidates child birth?

I'm afraid I don't follow. What "minor adaptations" by which "program" do you think I'm talking about? And what do your examples have to do with creationism?

 

[chris4243]

There is no reasonable doubting of scripture,

If only you could prove that, then you would win over the entire scientific community and about 6 billion people. Even among those who don't doubt scripture, each doubts the other's ability to interpret scripture.

Long story short, you won't convince anyone by saying they can't doubt the thing that they're doubting.

There's no reason for him to adopt your belief and doctrine (which relates as fiction) that the recording in the bible is unreliable.

What if he says that there is no reasonable doubting of a different book that says the bible is unreliable?

Whoever wants to convince the other needs to have evidence that the other guy will accept. You won't convince anyone using evidence that you accept and they don't.

 

[Resha Caner]

Except creation and evolution are NOT assuming the same thing. The only thing in common in Research6's post was that neither was observed. That's just a given.

Yes, exactly. I think it's an important common ground and you seem to dismiss it as irrelevant. I must say that, in general, it seems the role of assumptions in science is vastly underrated and misunderstood.

I didn't start out looking for common ground. If you'll note, my original proposal for fundamental assumptions was different for creation & evolution. But I did wonder if it would end this way, so, yes, I think that's pretty cool.

However, the reality is that every single thought, idea, or theory no matter what it is relies on one simple assumption: That your senses and reasoning are reliable.

So, maybe you are proposing an alternative? Fair enough, though, again, it seems rather general. I was looking for something unique to this issue. And, yes, this is an assumption - that our senses are reliable.

Sorry, but the rest of your post just came across as a rant. [edit] I should clarify this to say that IMO creationism is bound to have weak points just like evolution does. I'm not one to think there is an ironclad argument for it. As was said in the "paranormal" thread, the believer appreciates the mystery and doesn't feel compelled to explain it. But, since we're talking science here, I realize the creation argument must also rest on assumptions that, if not accepted, doom it to sink.

 

[Resha Caner]

But you can make a prediction based on what you think has happened and if the prediction is accurate, then that increases confidence in the validity of your inference regarding the past. See tiktaalik a famous example of that. Scientists made a prediction of where they should find the fossils of a long-extinct animal of specific properties and traits based on geology (what's happened to the Earth in the past,) paleontology (what's happened to life in the past,) biology (what happens to life in general,) etc.

This is a good challenge to what I said. Very nice. I would agree with what you are saying here, but there is still a flaw with it. This has nothing to do with the larger claims of evolution, i.e. that genetic mutations are the mechanism. As far as I know, no connection has been made between genetics and the evolutionary "trees" created from taxonomy and such. In fact, genetic evidence from the past is amazingly lacking. I can think of one example where there is some genetic material from a T-Rex that indicates it is similar to a chicken.

But, the "similarity" argument is useless, because both evolution and creation claim it supports their position. So, finding similarity doesn't prove one or the other. The process would need to be observed.

I have never understood the evolutionists logic:

- Creationism is anti-science because its not observable (couldn't agree more), but -

- Evolution is science.

However, evolution has never been observed.

Have you observed 'humans' evolve from a ''common ancestor''?

No large scale phenotypic change has ever been observed.

So why do evolutionists oppose creationism when they believe in things themselves which are not observable?

Yep.

 

[Jro]

I have never understood the evolutionists logic:

- Creationism is anti-science because its not observable (couldn't agree more), but -

- Evolution is science.

However, evolution has never been observed.

Have you observed 'humans' evolve from a ''common ancestor''?

No large scale phenotypic change has ever been observed.

So why do evolutionists oppose creationism when they believe in things themselves which are not observable?

Rapid large-scale evolutionary divergence in morphology and performance associated with exploitation of a different dietary resource

Large scale phenotypic change.

 

[sabercroft]

I have never understood the evolutionists logic:

- Creationism is anti-science because its not observable (couldn't agree more), but -

- Evolution is science.

However, evolution has never been observed.

Have you observed 'humans' evolve from a ''common ancestor''?

No large scale phenotypic change has ever been observed.

So why do evolutionists oppose creationism when they believe in things themselves which are not observable?

I think there may be a misunderstanding about the definition of "observable".

Let me use a hypothetical crime as an example. A victim was found dead from a gunshot wound, and some time afterwards the police identify a suspect. During the course of the trial the following information emerges: the bullet used to kill the victim was identified as registered to the suspect. The suspect owns a gun capable of firing the kind of bullet that killed the victim, and was shown to have been fired recently. Witnesses saw the suspect arriving at and leaving the crime scene at approximately the time of death. Traces of the victim's blood were found splattered on the suspect's clothing. A strong motive for the crime was established: a diamond ring belonging to the victim, also containing traces of the victim's blood, found in the suspect's possession.

There was no direct observation that the suspect shot the victim. But I hope you understand what I'm trying to explain. As far as the theory of common descent goes, we have comparisons of the genetic sequence of organisms revealing that organisms that are phylogenetically close have a higher degree of sequence similarity than organisms that are phylogenetically distant. We have genetic detritus such as pseudogenes: regions of DNA that are orthologous to a gene in a related organism, but are no longer active and appear to be undergoing a steady process of degeneration. Fossils allow for the comparative study of the anatomy of groups of animals which in turn show structural features that are fundamentally similar or homologous, demonstrating phylogenetic and ancestral relationships with other organisms, most especially when compared with fossils of ancient extinct organisms. Vestigial structures and comparisons in embryonic development contribute to anatomical resemblance. Comparison of existing organisms' physiology and biochemistry reveal that many lineages diverged at different stages of development, so it is possible to determine when certain metabolic processes appeared by comparing the traits of the descendants of a common ancestor. Universal biochemical organization and molecular variance patterns in all organisms also show a direct correlation with common descent.

Further evidence comes from the field of biogeography because evolution with common descent provides the best and most thorough explanation for a variety of facts concerning the geographical distribution of plants and animals across the world. This is especially obvious in the field of island biogeography. Combined with the theory of plate tectonics common descent provides a way to combine facts about the current distribution of species with evidence from the fossil record to provide a logically consistent explanation of how the distribution of living organisms has changed over time. Comparative sequence analysis, especially phylogenetic reconstruction using slowly-evolving protein sequences, reveals the relationship between the DNA sequences of different species, producing several lines of evidence that confirm Darwin's original hypothesis of common descent. And so on and so forth.

We have knowledge of Mendel's law of hereditary genetics, genetic drift, mutation, macroevolution, and how selection forces can and do produce phenotypical changes. We can and have duplicated these under laboratory conditions. We have evidence that all of this has been happening for hundreds of millions of years, with fossilized remains in perfectly-ordered geological strata showing us that small changes over long periods of time add up to, well, big changes (which should be obvious). And so on and so forth.

I hope you understand what I'm trying to get at. Although direct observation (in this case, of the above facts such as biogenetics, genetic sequencing, fossils, comparative anatomy, biogeography etc) forms the basis of science, science is and has never been limited to only what we can directly observe. Creation accounts, on the other hand, provide neither a well-researched, well-evidenced theory, nor any underlying observable facts to support it. While scientists have invested vast amounts of time, money, and effort researching their theories, and then turning around and trying their best to prove their own theories wrong just to be sure they got it right, the only proof offered by creationists are arguments from ignorance and emotion (yes, as strange as it sounds, it's the scientists who've been sinking large amounts of time and money trying to tear down their own theories, instead of the creationists).

I hope the difference in thinking between evolutionists and creationists are clearer now.

 

[chris4243]

I have never understood the evolutionists logic:

- Creationism is anti-science because its not observable (couldn't agree more), but -

- Evolution is science.

However, evolution has never been observed.

Have you observed 'humans' evolve from a ''common ancestor''?

I've observed two of my siblings evolve from a common ancestor. With every birth, and with every death, you see evolution.

No large scale phenotypic change has ever been observed.

Sure it has, just look through the fossil record. Just look through the DNA of currently living beings. Evolution has happened, and left the expected marks of evolution from a common ancestor in both phenotype and genotype for all to see. Things like retrovirus fragments in our DNA that match the retrovirus fragments in related species with the same mutations in the same places, things like the distribution of fossils and of currently living creatures, leave no doubt that evolution has happened -- to anyone who has spent the time to check for themselves. But those who have not bothered to study the evidence can say they are not convinced.

If what you meant to say was "no large scale phenogenetic change of the sort that takes millions of years to happen has been observed in the lab in a time period of less than 10 years", then you'd be right but what exactly do you think that proves?

So why do evolutionists oppose creationism when they believe in things themselves which are not observable?

Because they don't. Evolution is observable in the fossil record whereas young earth creationism is falsified by the fossil record. Yes, we observe it right now with the fossils right now. There is no other theory that fits the fossil distribution that is observed right now. We will continue to observe the fossil record and it will continue to fit the predictions of the theory of evolution.

Tell me though, how come it is that you believe in gravity? Have you ever observed the effects of gravity on an object? Have you ever seen an object fall? Since you've never seen an object fall I can't see how you can believe in gravity. (and don't go telling me that what you "saw" was photons from a light source reflecting off an object, getting refracted by the lens of your eye, exciting the cone cells, and sending an electrochemical signal cascade to your brain -- that's the past, you've never directly seen an object fall have you?)

 

[Jro]

This has nothing to do with the larger claims of evolution, i.e. that genetic mutations are the mechanism. As far as I know, no connection has been made between genetics and the evolutionary "trees" created from taxonomy and such. In fact, genetic evidence from the past is amazingly lacking. I can think of one example where there is some genetic material from a T-Rex that indicates it is similar to a chicken.

You're wrong. There's been quite a lot of work done on molecular phylogenies. In fact, it's a very large field with several journals devoted solely to studying the subject. Many phylogenetic trees have been constructed solely from molecular data. If you want more information, I can provide you with links to studies, but you're going to have to be a bit more specific in what you're looking for. Do you want studies showing genetic links between different organisms, or studies showing that mutations have caused speciation?

But, the "similarity" argument is useless, because both evolution and creation claim it supports their position. So, finding similarity doesn't prove one or the other. The process would need to be observed.

It's the pattern of similarities that are predicted by evolution. Why would bat wings be more like a mammalian hand than they are like bird wings? Why are bird wings and bat wings more similar to each other than they are to insect wings? Etc.

 

[chris4243]

As far as I know, no connection has been made between genetics and the evolutionary "trees" created from taxonomy and such.

That field is called phylogenetics. Now you know.

It might also interest you to know that phylogenetic trees based of different, individual genes, also match up with each other... why might that be?

But, the "similarity" argument is useless, because both evolution and creation claim it supports their position. So, finding similarity doesn't prove one or the other. The process would need to be observed.

No, the similarity argument is not useless since the predictions of each are different.

Consider this example:
Alice predicts that tomorrow it will rain from 3:47 to 4:12, then from 5:13 to 5:26, then from 8:33 to 9:05, and a total of 1.8 inches of rain will fall that day. Bob predicts it will probably rain tomorrow (unless it doesn't, in which case it won't rain) but when pressed on the details he says that's all he knows. If tomorrow it rains as much and at the times Alice predicted, then Bob is also right... but if this happens a few times people will pretty quickly decide that Alice can predict the weather much better than can Bob, even though they make the "same" prediction. In fact, if they were paying attention they would say Bob can't predict the weather at all.

Now consider: why should all creatures have been created similarly? Sure, a common designer could do that but a designer could also be creative and make them totally different... unless that designer happens to not be very clever nor creative. It is not a prediction of creationism that creatures must be genetically similar. If creatures were genetically dissimilar, creationists could simply say that it just shows that the designer was very creative.

Meanwhile, not only does evolution predict similarity, it predicts the number of differences you can expect between two different genes, the pattern of the differences, the geographical locations in question, and many more things.

Meanwhile, if you consider the predictions made by creationism eg that there is a genetic bottleneck of all species about 4,300 years ago down to either 2 or 14 individuals depending on whether they are clean or not, and that all non-aquatic species migrated outwards in the past 4,300 years from a single point... you look at the evidence and can easily tell that no such thing happened.

 

[Davian]

Is there evidence of the resurrection? or just the bible story?

And even if there was, how can you prove the Christian god did it?

He doesn't hold your belief that testimonies given are unreliable. That doctrine may be regarded as fiction.

Special pleading. Where else is second-hand testimony worth anything?

There's only one God.

Could have been aliens.

And what about those other gods in the bible?

• Exodus 22:28
  Thou shalt not revile the gods.
• Exodus 23:13
  Make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth.
• Exodus 23:24
  Thou shalt not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, nor do after their works: but thou shalt utterly overthrow them, and quite break down their images.
• Exodus 23:32
  Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor with their gods.
• Exodus 34:14
  For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.
• Numbers 33:4
  Upon their gods also the LORD executed judgments.
• Deuteronomy 5:7
  Thou shalt have none other gods before me.

source

 

[Greg1234]

Special pleading. Where else is second-hand testimony worth anything?

As just given, the belief that it is unreliable is not shared by him.

Could have been aliens.

Alien life is not the first cause but a creation through same.

And what about those other gods in the bible?

• Exodus 22:28
  Thou shalt not revile the gods.
• Exodus 23:13
  Make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth.
• Exodus 23:24
  Thou shalt not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, nor do after their works: but thou shalt utterly overthrow them, and quite break down their images.
• Exodus 23:32
  Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor with their gods.
• Exodus 34:14
  For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.
• Numbers 33:4
  Upon their gods also the LORD executed judgments.
• Deuteronomy 5:7
  Thou shalt have none other gods before me.

source

These are gods, not God.

 

[Research6]

And what about those other gods in the bible?

The ancient Israelites were monolatrists, however this usually gets confused with monotheism. The difference is that monolatrism is the worship of only one God, but at the same time recognising the existance of many. The 'other' Gods in the Old Testament are therefore the Gods of the non-Israelites.

The standard Christian however will not accept this, as it contradicts their belief only one supreme God exists.

The early Church attempted to resolve the problem by considering the 'other' Gods as having their origin in idolatry, however of course they never applied this same logic to the God of the Bible.

 

[Research6]

There was no direct observation that the suspect shot the victim. But I hope you understand what I'm trying to explain.

Yes i understand this, we don't need to directly observe something to know it happened e.g. if a comet hit the earth and left a crater we would know because of the left over physical evidence, despite it never actually having being observed hitting (the impact) etc.

We infer the evidence from left over clues.

As far as the theory of common descent goes, we have comparisons of the genetic sequence of organisms revealing that organisms that are phylogenetically close have a higher degree of sequence similarity than organisms that are phylogenetically distant. We have genetic detritus such as pseudogenes: regions of DNA that are orthologous to a gene in a related organism, but are no longer active and appear to be undergoing a steady process of degeneration. Fossils allow for the comparative study of the anatomy of groups of animals which in turn show structural features that are fundamentally similar or homologous, demonstrating phylogenetic and ancestral relationships with other organisms, most especially when compared with fossils of ancient extinct organisms. Vestigial structures and comparisons in embryonic development contribute to anatomical resemblance. Comparison of existing organisms' physiology and biochemistry reveal that many lineages diverged at different stages of development, so it is possible to determine when certain metabolic processes appeared by comparing the traits of the descendants of a common ancestor. Universal biochemical organization and molecular variance patterns in all organisms also show a direct correlation with common descent.

None of this proves evolution, there are many different interpetations or possible answers, not just evolution.

I hope the difference in thinking between evolutionists and creationists are clearer now.

See 1 above.

Creationism and evolution are both interpretations of history. Niether are observable unless you have a time machine.

 

[Research6]

I've observed two of my siblings evolve from a common ancestor. With every birth, and with every death, you see evolution.

Yet that common ancestor looked the same.

That's not evolution.

Nothing has changed or evolved.

For evolution to be observed you need observational evidence man sprung from a non-man. Remember its you guys who think we sprung from apes or hominids. Do you have the transition on camera?

 

[Research6]

Tell me though, how come it is that you believe in gravity? Have you ever observed the effects of gravity on an object? Have you ever seen an object fall? Since you've never seen an object fall I can't see how you can believe in gravity. (and don't go telling me that what you "saw" was photons from a light source reflecting off an object, getting refracted by the lens of your eye, exciting the cone cells, and sending an electrochemical signal cascade to your brain -- that's the past, you've never directly seen an object fall have you?)

See above. Science isn't only about what is directly observed its also based on inference. However evolution is not inferred from the evidence, its a mere interpretation.