Creationists and research

[Apollo Rhetor]

I'm not sure any of you know the difference between science and philosophy. Toff, you say "If you had, you wouldn't be asking these questions, and you wouldn't be insisting that the theory of evolution is philosophical, rather than scientific" - and what if I'm correct? Then I *would* be saying these things.

My challenge is simple - give me a scientific theory of common ancestry. If the general theory of evolution is scientific, then this part must be. But Bushido216 has hit the nail on the head, saying "We can't observe common ancestry, it's already happened" and " A theory of common ancestry, which would really be covered by the greater theory of evolution (responsible for all life) wouldn't make predictions about the future" - all clues that it's a philosophical argument, and NOT a scientific one.

 

[Jet Black]

I'm not sure any of you know the difference between science and philosophy. Toff, you say "If you had, you wouldn't be asking these questions, and you wouldn't be insisting that the theory of evolution is philosophical, rather than scientific" - and what if I'm correct? Then I *would* be saying these things.

My challenge is simple - give me a scientific theory of common ancestry. If the general theory of evolution is scientific, then this part must be. But Bushido216 has hit the nail on the head, saying "We can't observe common ancestry, it's already happened" and " A theory of common ancestry, which would really be covered by the greater theory of evolution (responsible for all life) wouldn't make predictions about the future" - all clues that it's a philosophical argument, and NOT a scientific one.

so what would the study of cladistic, phylogenetics, molecular remnants, mitochondrial DNA be then, except the study of ancestry. Evolution states that there is descent with modification, and natural selection, and from this we would conclude that things have common ancestors. The common ancestors would be different, but would share features with their descendents. Common ancestry would share that organisms alive today would share features on both a physical and a molecular level. All these things have been found. This very same theory, descent with modification and natural selection, can make predictions about the future too.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

Nice Red Dwarf Avatar

How can we repeatedly test the claim that all life today shares a common ancestor? How can we observe that? Most importantly, how can we falsify it?

Evolution states that there is descent with modification, and natural selection, and from this we would conclude that things have common ancestors.

How is such a conclusion reasonable? It could easily be true that species do not share a common ancestor, like creation claims. What is the scientificly testable, repeatable, observable and falsifiable theory that all organisms share a common ancestor? I don't see anything we can test or falsify yet.

Common ancestry would share that organisms alive today would share features on both a physical and a molecular level. All these things have been found.

That by no means proves (though scientific theories are never proven, but rather good explanations until falsified) common ancestry. We would expect similarity in features on both a physical and a molecular level if we assume a common creator. But I digress. If we assume common ancestry then we would also expect to see both differences and similarities on a physical and molecular level. Therefore it has no explanatory power - for the differences will be explained as the result of evolution, and the similarities explained by common ancestry. That has zero explanatory power.

 

[Jet Black]

Nice Red Dwarf Avatar

How can we repeatedly test the claim that all life today shares a common ancestor? How can we observe that? Most importantly, how can we falsify it?

by looking at the things that you cut out of my post. Read the whole post again, rather than chopping it up into little incomplete bits. falsifications would be things that are wildly out of touch with phylogenetics, for example, a mammal with an avian breathing system, or a shark with an atavistic leg.

How is such a conclusion reasonable? It could easily be true that species do not share a common ancestor, like creation claims. What is the scientificly testable, repeatable, observable and falsifiable theory that all organisms share a common ancestor? I don't see anything we can test or falsify yet.

look at the things that you cut out of my post. Read the whole post again, rather than chopping it up into little incomplete bits. I pointed out a number of things right in the opening of my post.

That by no means proves (though scientific theories are never proven, but rather good explanations until falsified) common ancestry. We would expect similarity in features on both a physical and a molecular level if we assume a common creator. But I digress. If we assume common ancestry then we would also expect to see both differences and similarities on a physical and molecular level. Therefore it has no explanatory power - for the differences will be explained as the result of evolution, and the similarities explained by common ancestry. That has zero explanatory power.

look at the things that you cut out of my post. Read the whole post again, rather than chopping it up into little incomplete bits. Why would things like the phylogenetic trees of endogenous retroviral sequences point towards a common creator? why would the match between human chromosome 2, with chimp 2p and 2q point to a common creator? How about the existance of telomeres right in the middle of human chromosome 2, markings of the old centromeres which line up with the chimp cases, and the lack of an obvious songle centromere in the human chromosome, despite the fact that chromosomes always have telomeres on the end and centromeres in the middle. Surely a common designer would just stick telomeres on the ends of the chromosomes like he does with all the other chromosomes. how about the recently discovered gene for brain size, and the note that a mutation in this gene reverts the brain size back to the same size as our early homonid ancestors? Where does mesonyx fit in a common creator hypothesis? it fits into evolution perfectly as I described, as do a great deal of other transitional forms.

The cladistic matches between different phylogenies alone are amazing. Molecular and physical evidence from a number of different sources all correlates. If we look at the phylogenetic tree constructed from similarities in transposon sequences, we get the same tree that we see from endogenous retroviral sequences, we get the same tree to that which we see in chromosome comparison, we get the same tree to that which we see looking at fossils, and we get the same tree from looking at body morphology. There is no need for there to be this match with a common creator, and indeed it is almost ludicrous to expect that it would all match up so well with known temporal scales, which in themselves are measured using a variety of completely independent, but correlating techniques.

 

[Thurisaz Sowulo]

What research do evilutionists do into creationism?

None, because "evilutionists" don't exist. Science is not a religion.

It takes a lot more faith to believe that everything came to be by radom processes (wich destroy, not build-thermodynamics & common sense/observable fact.) Than it takes to believe that a rational mind created everything.

You are right about the random processes. This is why evolutionary theory is widely accepted... for it IS NOT RANDOM.
And as for your rational mind, the "creator"/"designer" must have been none-too-competent, certainly not a deity of whatever kind, considering that humans (and I guess most other lifeforms as well) are built about as buggy as any Micro$oft OS. One hint: Respiratory center - location and capabilities.

Where in your opinon did (whatever you believe was at the beggining) come from?

That is not a question that science can (or tries to) answer. You are free to explain this using religion. Science can only try to find out whether what we consider the beginning today really was the beginning, or if something else in fact came before it.

What logic do you hold to that says order comes from disorder?

Next time it snows around you, look at the snowflakes. Every one of them is a supreme example of order forming from disorder. And there are myriads of other examples, crystal growth being one of them.

By the way, you grossly misunderstand the meaning of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I suggest you educate yourself on the topics you blindly attack.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

by looking at the things that you cut out of my post. Read the whole post again, rather than chopping it up into little incomplete bits.

I despise your repetition which is designed to make a mockery of me. It is unbecoming of intellectual debate. I reread your post as you requested, and could find no hard scientific theories or philosophical arguments, but just general statements and allusions to other things. If you want to be specific about what I chopped or missed, then be my guest.

falsifications would be things that are wildly out of touch with phylogenetics, for example, a mammal with an avian breathing system, or a shark with an atavistic leg.

So you are telling me that a mammal with an avian breathing system would falsify the teaching that all living things share a common ancestor? Or a shark with an atavistic leg would likewise falsify it?

Why would things like the phylogenetic trees of endogenous retroviral sequences point towards a common creator? why would the match between human chromosome 2, with chimp 2p and 2q point to a common creator? How about the existance of telomeres right in the middle of human chromosome 2, markings of the old centromeres which line up with the chimp cases, and the lack of an obvious songle centromere in the human chromosome, despite the fact that chromosomes always have telomeres on the end and centromeres in the middle. Surely a common designer would just stick telomeres on the ends of the chromosomes like he does with all the other chromosomes.

I know nothing about these, if you have further online references I would be happy to take a look. Nevertheless, none of these show a scientific theory for the common descent of humans. You are resorting to philosophical arguments, thus strengthening my original proposition that the general theory of evolution is a philosophical theory, not a scientific one. You are pointing to evidences and drawing conclusions from them, but you are not practicing science. When you give premises and attempt to draw a conclusion from them (which you are doing), you are engaging in philosophy.

I want a scientific theory for the common descent of all life.

how about the recently discovered gene for brain size, and the note that a mutation in this gene reverts the brain size back to the same size as our early homonid ancestors?

I don't see what this has to do with anything. I assume you are talking about neanderthals? How does this prove anything about common ancestry? Creationists do not deny the succession of modern homo sapiens from neanderthals.

Where does mesonyx fit in a common creator hypothesis? it fits into evolution perfectly as I described, as do a great deal of other transitional forms.

I have no idea what a mesonyx is. The creation model includes natural selection and the creation of new species, according to the scientific definitions of evolution that we talked about earlier. If you tell me more about mesonyx, perhaps I can comment (google had little clues for me, but I didn't look many pages in).

The cladistic matches between different phylogenies alone are amazing. Molecular and physical evidence from a number of different sources all correlates. If we look at the phylogenetic tree constructed from similarities in transposon sequences, we get the same tree that we see from endogenous retroviral sequences, we get the same tree to that which we see in chromosome comparison, we get the same tree to that which we see looking at fossils, and we get the same tree from looking at body morphology.

I should love to see an essay on such amazing agreements which you assert exist but don't provide evidence for, but I do have three things to say:
1. A discussion on the weaknesses of cladistics:

What this example proves is that depending on which characteristics we use, we have a different common ancestor. If metabolism is used birds and mammals are close cousins and crocodiles unrelated to each (the Haemothermia hypothesis). If skull and heart structure is used birds and crocodiles are close cousins, and mammals unrelated to each. (the standard hypothesis). This proves that despite being an attempt to construct a more "objective" system than the Linnean one, cladistics still has to fall back on the same subjectivity and arbitrariness.

So it seems to me that a number of arbitrary choices need to be made in order to get these trees to agree so amazingly (source: http://www.palaeos.com/systematics/Cladistics/cladistics.htm)
2. Creation model includes different species with common ancestors. It merely does not allow for ALL living things to share a single common ancestor. Humans do not share a common ancestor with sharks, who do not share a common ancestor with birds.
3. These are all philosophical arguments you are presenting. The way that this cladistic tree is formed is far from scientific.

There is no need for there to be this match with a common creator, and indeed it is almost ludicrous to expect that it would all match up so well with known temporal scales, which in themselves are measured using a variety of completely independent, but correlating techniques.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. Creation still includes common ancestors for many species, so we too have tree, but it looks different.
This image shows the evolutionary morphology:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/feedback/images/tree.gif
While this image shows creation morphology:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/feedback/images/orchard.gif

 

[Jet Black]

I despise your repetition which is designed to make a mockery of me. It is unbecoming of intellectual debate. I reread your post as you requested, and could find no hard scientific theories or philosophical arguments, but just general statements and allusions to other things. If you want to be specific about what I chopped or missed, then be my guest.

sorry about that. I get too used to people not reading what I write and just cherry picking the bits they want in order to make their argument. It is generally quit a bad debate tactic, as you end up misrepresenting what the other side said, as I feel you did. For example you ignored all of the cladistics and phylogenetics and so on, which made the first line of the post, and then subtly misinterpreted other bits based on this. you may not have done this intentionally, but that was the way it came across.

So you are telling me that a mammal with an avian breathing system would falsify the teaching that all living things share a common ancestor? Or a shark with an atavistic leg would likewise falsify it?

fundamentally yes, unless there was a clear evolutionary route. It is a bit difficult to do this without a diagram, but say we start with species A, which splits into B and C... A becomes extinct. B anc C diversify into D,E anf F,G respectively. now if we see a feature that only emerged in C, then we would not expect that to be found in A, or anything from the B branch. i.e. we find that animals have legs, but sharks and manta rays do not, since their common ancestor was a fish without legs.

I know nothing about these, if you have further online references I would be happy to take a look. Nevertheless, none of these show a scientific theory for the common descent of humans. You are resorting to philosophical arguments, thus strengthening my original proposition that the general theory of evolution is a philosophical theory, not a scientific one. You are pointing to evidences and drawing conclusions from them, but you are not practicing science. When you give premises and attempt to draw a conclusion from them (which you are doing), you are engaging in philosophy.

what do you think science is? it's not called "natural philosophy" for nothing.

I want a scientific theory for the common descent of all life.

it's called evolution. You make your premise, i.e. descent with modification and natural selection. then you think of what the implications of those premises are, and you look for them. we see them.

I don't see what this has to do with anything. I assume you are talking about neanderthals? How does this prove anything about common ancestry? Creationists do not deny the succession of modern homo sapiens from neanderthals.

no I am not talking about neandertal man. I would hope that creationists do not think that we came from neandertal man, since it has been shown that neandertal man are not our ancestors, as a result of mtDNA analysis.

I have no idea what a mesonyx is.

the mesonyx is a very early carnivorae, showing some specialisation of the teeth and so on. However the cranium is not quite the same as the carnivore and it has more teeth (the loss of teeth can be followed through subsequent species) and there are a number of other differences too. The actual evolution of the carnivorae into the felines, canines and all the others is actually rather well understood. I don't have my link list here, but I am sure that you will be able to find plenty from google. just do a search for mesonyx, and "evolution carnivore" and you should pull up quite a bit of information.

The creation model includes natural selection and the creation of new species, according to the scientific definitions of evolution that we talked about earlier. If you tell me more about mesonyx, perhaps I can comment (google had little clues for me, but I didn't look many pages in).

oh you looked, no problem then. here is a chopped bit of one of my old posts here, which will give you a couple of other names:

. Dogs are a member of the order Carnivorae, which used to consist of animals like the Mesonyx, which is a primitive and now extinct carnivore. All the decendents of Mesonyx will be members of the order carnivorae. however not all of them will be like the mesonyx - some will be slightly better adapted to certain tasks, and hence we have the sub orders Feliformia (cats, hyenas and so on) and Caniformia (dogs, bears, otters etc) and these orders will be further subdivided as you can see. Each generation will inherit characteristics of the previous one, and have some slightly different ones, and hence over time mesonyx can evolve into all the carnivorae we see today. Of course a member of the carnivorae order will never give birth to a member of the primate order, and this is entirely expected, however carnivorae and primates share features of the mammalia.

The problem with the many creationist models is that they singularly fail to fit most of the 99% of all species that ever were (the extinct ones) into any of the biblical kinds. There are many that are not quite caniformia and not quite feliformia. many that are not quite dogs and not quite bears and so on. This is literally just one of the many families of animals that there are.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

For example you ignored all of the cladistics and phylogenetics and so on, which made the first line of the post, and then subtly misinterpreted other bits based on this. you may not have done this intentionally, but that was the way it came across.

Well, I did comment on it. I said that you made general statements and allusions to other things but nothing specific. You became more specific in your subsequent post, so I was able to comment.

fundamentally yes, unless there was a clear evolutionary route. It is a bit difficult to do this without a diagram, but say we start with species A, which splits into B and C... A becomes extinct. B anc C diversify into D,E anf F,G respectively. now if we see a feature that only emerged in C, then we would not expect that to be found in A, or anything from the B branch. i.e. we find that animals have legs, but sharks and manta rays do not, since their common ancestor was a fish without legs.

I'm not convinced. If we found a mammal with an avian breathing system no-one would reject common ancestry. Instead, they'd adjust their morphological trees to fit in the new find. Are you telling me that wouldn't happen? I'm not saying it wouldn't cause problems for existing trees - I just believe that it wouldn't be enough to overcome people's desire to uphold evolution.

what do you think science is? it's not called "natural philosophy" for nothing.

Science is not a philosophy. For starters, science is inductive while philosophy is deductive. Secondly, science deals with first order questions while philosophy deals with second order questions.

it's called evolution. You make your premise, i.e. descent with modification and natural selection. then you think of what the implications of those premises are, and you look for them. we see them.

That's not science yet. It must be falsifiable. For example, the theory of evolution has a scientific definition:
"Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time."
This is observable, repeatable, and testable. It is falsifiable - find a population group where alelle frequencies don't change. It has predictive power - that genetic characteristics will continue to change.

"All living things descend from a single common ancestor" is not scientific. It is not observable, repeatable, or testable. It cannot be falsified, since it deals with the unobservable past. It has no predictive power that I can see. It is a philosophical statement, and it must be established using deduction, because the inductive method is insufficient. It is not science.

no I am not talking about neandertal man. I would hope that creationists do not think that we came from neandertal man, since it has been shown that neandertal man are not our ancestors, as a result of mtDNA analysis.

I had not heard this was so. Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens are supposed to share a common ancestor, correct? Nevertheless, I fail to see how what you were saying initially is relevant. It was perhaps a mistake of me to mention a common creator, because that was straying from my initial assertion - that the general theory of evolution is a philosophical model and not a scientific one.

. Dogs are a member of the order Carnivorae, which used to consist of animals like the Mesonyx, which is a primitive and now extinct carnivore. All the decendents of Mesonyx will be members of the order carnivorae. however not all of them will be like the mesonyx - some will be slightly better adapted to certain tasks, and hence we have the sub orders Feliformia (cats, hyenas and so on) and Caniformia (dogs, bears, otters etc) and these orders will be further subdivided as you can see. Each generation will inherit characteristics of the previous one, and have some slightly different ones, and hence over time mesonyx can evolve into all the carnivorae we see today. Of course a member of the carnivorae order will never give birth to a member of the primate order, and this is entirely expected, however carnivorae and primates share features of the mammalia.

Could you please be more specific with what you are trying to prove or assert by talking about the Mesonyx?

The problem with the many creationist models is that they singularly fail to fit most of the 99% of all species that ever were (the extinct ones) into any of the biblical kinds. There are many that are not quite caniformia and not quite feliformia. many that are not quite dogs and not quite bears and so on. This is literally just one of the many families of animals that there are.

In order to fit the species into biblical kinds would be a large effort, and resources for specifically creation based research are far more limited than resources given to evolutionary (and I mean the general theory that I oppose, not the scientific theory that creation also accepts) research. Therefore, creation researches tend to reserve their funds for more critical research such as examining different geological dating methods (check out the RATE project at www.icr.org or other sites). Putting today's species into their kinds would be a long project for little reward based on the cost.

 

[Jet Black]

I'm not convinced. If we found a mammal with an avian breathing system no-one would reject common ancestry. Instead, they'd adjust their morphological trees to fit in the new find. Are you telling me that wouldn't happen? I'm not saying it wouldn't cause problems for existing trees - I just believe that it wouldn't be enough to overcome people's desire to uphold evolution.

It would be a huge problem. THings that are evolved after a branching should not appear earlier in the branching, or along another branch.

That's not science yet. It must be falsifiable. For example, the theory of evolution has a scientific definition:
"Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time."
This is observable, repeatable, and testable. It is falsifiable - find a population group where alelle frequencies don't change. It has predictive power - that genetic characteristics will continue to change.

"All living things descend from a single common ancestor" is not scientific. It is not observable, repeatable, or testable. It cannot be falsified, since it deals with the unobservable past. It has no predictive power that I can see. It is a philosophical statement, and it must be established using deduction, because the inductive method is insufficient. It is not science.

of course it is testable. There are things you should see, and things you shouldn't. The test is the next thing you dig up, or the next thing you measure. Are you going to say that astronomy isn't science, or anything not done in a lab is not science? they are all the same.

I had not heard this was so. Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens are supposed to share a common ancestor, correct? Nevertheless, I fail to see how what you were saying initially is relevant. It was perhaps a mistake of me to mention a common creator, because that was straying from my initial assertion - that the general theory of evolution is a philosophical model and not a scientific one.

they share a common ancestor, like an uncle and his nephew share a common ancestor. This does not mean that the nephew is the uncle's son. My initial point was to do with the evolution of the brain "if they are a common ancestor, then there should be some genetic difference between them and us that leads to us havng a larger brain" and there is.

Could you please be more specific with what you are trying to prove or assert by talking about the Mesonyx?

common ancestry. The mesonyx does not fit into any of the extant taxonomies, however it fits into more general grouping of mammalian carnivores. It does not have the specialisations that modern day carnivores have. As I pointed out, there are a number of fossil species, all of which are continually more spcialised through time, and approach modern day animals.

In order to fit the species into biblical kinds would be a large effort, and resources for specifically creation based research are far more limited than resources given to evolutionary (and I mean the general theory that I oppose, not the scientific theory that creation also accepts) research.

The problem of course, is that there is no definition of a "kind" which is sufficiently meaningful to undertake such a task. perhaps you can provide one. There are too many fossils of animals which are part way between one soecies and another to fit them all into a finite number of kinds - not to forget that one has to cram all of these kinds on to the ark, but that is another story.

Therefore, creation researches tend to reserve their funds for more critical research such as examining different geological dating methods (check out the RATE project at www.icr.org or other sites). Putting today's species into their kinds would be a long project for little reward based on the cost.

well even defining what they mean by "kind" would be a huge start. I will let the geologists deal with the RATE project problems, of which there are many, and which are off topic for this thread.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

It would be a huge problem. THings that are evolved after a branching should not appear earlier in the branching, or along another branch.

Huge problem does not mean end of evolution, as has been shown in the past.

of course it is testable. There are things you should see, and things you shouldn't. The test is the next thing you dig up, or the next thing you measure. Are you going to say that astronomy isn't science, or anything not done in a lab is not science? they are all the same.

I'll make no such claim. i'm simply saying that quite often scientists cross over into philosophy without realising. For example, the question "what is science?" is a philosophical one, not a scientific one. Here are some philosophical questions about biology: Is there an external world that is knowable and, if so, how does one know it? What is life, and how does it differ from nonlife? How should someone form, test and use scientific theories and laws? Is it morally permissible to experiment on living things?
Those are some samples. Now astronomy is a science, but astronomers may find themselves engaged in philosophy, quite by accident. Evolution is one such example - people cross over into philosophical discussions all the time, but unfortunately evolutionists have a tendancy to say creation is not science without recognising the same is true of their theory.

they share a common ancestor, like an uncle and his nephew share a common ancestor. This does not mean that the nephew is the uncle's son. My initial point was to do with the evolution of the brain "if they are a common ancestor, then there should be some genetic difference between them and us that leads to us havng a larger brain" and there is.

This is expected by creationists too, and is not related to a scientific theory for a common ancestor. My confusion was in the brain size. When you said the same size as our ancestors, I recalled that Neanderthals had a larger brain than we do, so I thought you referring to that - not a smaller brain size.

common ancestry. The mesonyx does not fit into any of the extant taxonomies, however it fits into more general grouping of mammalian carnivores. It does not have the specialisations that modern day carnivores have. As I pointed out, there are a number of fossil species, all of which are continually more spcialised through time, and approach modern day animals.

This too is expected in the creation model.

The problem of course, is that there is no definition of a "kind" which is sufficiently meaningful to undertake such a task. perhaps you can provide one.

One definition has been given:

Based on the Biblical criterion for kinds, creationists deduce that as long as two creatures can hybridize with true fertilization, the two creatures are (i.e. descended from) the same kind. Also, if two creatures can hybridize with the same third creature, they are all members of the same kind. The hybridization criterion is a valid operational definition, whichcould in principle enable researchers to list all the kinds. The implication is one-way—hybridization is evidence that they are the same kind, but it does not necessarily follow that if hybridization cannot occur then they are not members of the same kind (failure to hybridize could be due to degenerative mutations). After all, there are couples who can’t have children, and we don’t classify them as a different species, let alone a different kind.

From: http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/0924ep1.asp

There are too many fossils of animals which are part way between one soecies and another to fit them all into a finite number of kinds

Too many? Why? Given any two human parents there are around 10^2017 possible different children. Of course, you'd double up well before you reach that number, but it becomes really obvious how much this is when you understand that the known universe has around 10^80 atoms in it. From: http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-089.htm

not to forget that one has to cram all of these kinds on to the ark, but that is another story.

Cram...now there's a loaded word. It would not require cramming at all. We have not even determined which species belong to which kinds, nor how many kinds there are. If we were talking about species then maybe it would be harder, but we're not. Unless you are privy to some numbers I haven't seen.

well even defining what they mean by "kind" would be a huge start. I will let the geologists deal with the RATE project problems, of which there are many, and which are off topic for this thread.

You know of problems with the RATE project? I find geology very interesting. But I'm a curious person in general - which is why I love philosophy, which works to tie various fields together

I'm about to head away for about a week, and when I get back this thread will probably be much fuller, and probably far off topic. I may be able to reply again before I go, but not guarunteed. So just letting you know if I suddenly drop quiet, that's why. I've found this discussion interesting, and like always I've learned more. Thanks.

 

[Jet Black]

Huge problem does not mean end of evolution, as has been shown in the past.

example?

I'll make no such claim. i'm simply saying that quite often scientists cross over into philosophy without realising. For example, the question "what is science?" is a philosophical one, not a scientific one. Here are some philosophical questions about biology: Is there an external world that is knowable and, if so, how does one know it? What is life, and how does it differ from nonlife? How should someone form, test and use scientific theories and laws? Is it morally permissible to experiment on living things?
Those are some samples. Now astronomy is a science, but astronomers may find themselves engaged in philosophy, quite by accident. Evolution is one such example - people cross over into philosophical discussions all the time, but unfortunately evolutionists have a tendancy to say creation is not science without recognising the same is true of their theory.

I don'T see the point of this semantic discussion. in what way does it invalidate evolution?

This is expected by creationists too, and is not related to a scientific theory for a common ancestor. My confusion was in the brain size. When you said the same size as our ancestors, I recalled that Neanderthals had a larger brain than we do, so I thought you referring to that - not a smaller brain size.

you then said that creationists believe that neandertals are our ancestors.

This too is expected in the creation model.

so what is not expected in the creation model then? are you going to address things like whale hind leg atavisms and so on? Biblically whales were created straight into the sea, so there is no reason for them to have the genetic code for legs. however this is sometimes expressed.

One definition has been given:
From: http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/0924ep1.asp

so if things can hybridize they are of the same kind, and if they can't they still might be of the same kind. how is this helpful in any way? how can one actually determine whether two species are from the same kind?

Too many? Why? Given any two human parents there are around 10^2017 possible different children. Of course, you'd double up well before you reach that number, but it becomes really obvious how much this is when you understand that the known universe has around 10^80 atoms in it. From: http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-089.htm

I hadn't quite made my point well enough.

Cram...now there's a loaded word. It would not require cramming at all. We have not even determined which species belong to which kinds, nor how many kinds there are. If we were talking about species then maybe it would be harder, but we're not. Unless you are privy to some numbers I haven't seen.

well there is still the huge problem of not even being able to define a kind. what kind do all the fossils fit in? particularly things that are part way between one species and another, but also quite different from both?

You know of problems with the RATE project? I find geology very interesting. But I'm a curious person in general - which is why I love philosophy, which works to tie various fields together

yes, there are alot. If you have a look for Frumious Bandersnatch (he hasn't been around for a while, so do a search), or JGMEERT's threads there are a great number of geological threads. which the likes of the RATE project cannot address. There is also the complete failure to actually find a mechanism for accelerated radioactive decay for the vast majority of isotopes (there are a couple that can use things like electron capture, but these are rare) and also features like the Oklo Phenomenon.

I'm about to head away for about a week, and when I get back this thread will probably be much fuller, and probably far off topic. I may be able to reply again before I go, but not guarunteed. So just letting you know if I suddenly drop quiet, that's why. I've found this discussion interesting, and like always I've learned more. Thanks.

no problem sorry for being edgy at the start, thanks for not taking it too badly

 

[Bushido216]

I'm not sure any of you know the difference between science and philosophy. Toff, you say "If you had, you wouldn't be asking these questions, and you wouldn't be insisting that the theory of evolution is philosophical, rather than scientific" - and what if I'm correct? Then I *would* be saying these things.

My challenge is simple - give me a scientific theory of common ancestry. If the general theory of evolution is scientific, then this part must be. But Bushido216 has hit the nail on the head, saying "We can't observe common ancestry, it's already happened" and " A theory of common ancestry, which would really be covered by the greater theory of evolution (responsible for all life) wouldn't make predictions about the future" - all clues that it's a philosophical argument, and NOT a scientific one.

Thanks for quoting me out of context, I appreciate it.

On a related note, does this mean I've graduated to the next level?

 

[LorentzHA]

Tyreth-No, I think you are missing the point, 6,000 years is very incompatible with the theory of evolution, as well as common sense.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

Thanks for quoting me out of context, I appreciate it.

On a related note, does this mean I've graduated to the next level?

How was I quoting you out of context? What injustice did I do to your words?

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

example?

Ah, you've caught me off guard. I will say that I have seen examples, but I can't recal any, or even where I've seen it, so disregard my words on this particular topic.
Staying on the topic, I do believe that if we were to find either of the creatures you suggested that people would not abandon evolution. Is that what you are saying?

I don'T see the point of this semantic discussion. in what way does it invalidate evolution?

I had explained vaguely, but I will explain in more detailed. Evolutionists have traditionaly used an argument against creation saying "creationism is not scientific, but evolution is". They are trying to deceive the listener into thinking that because creationism is not scientific that it is therefore not rational or not worth considering. There are two problems with this argument:
1. Evolution, the greater theory of, is not scientific either
2. Philosophy deals specifically with the rational and with logic, and therefore if creationism is a philosophical model it is still important for one to consider, because it may be valid. After all, any model of origins is philosophical by nature
When evolutionists claim that evolution is science but creation is not, they are trying to latch onto the prestige that science has gained. But science is not *the* answer. Philosophy is a second order discipline that answers questions about science that science cannot answer about itself. "What is science?" is a philosophical question. It is therefore a misunderstanding that science is of more value than philosophy.

I wanted to help end this misconception, because it is not a good argument and is a false attack on creationism. Having then established that the greater theory of evolution belongs to the realm of philosophy means that two discussing them could eliminate wasteful discussions on the scientific or lack of scientific nature of either proponent's beliefs.

you then said that creationists believe that neandertals are our ancestors.

Yes, I assumed you were referring to them as I said. I think that creationists do believe that neanderthals are our ancestors. But I may have been stepping out of my bounds, I'm not sure if the current creation model says that neanderthals are our ancestors, or if they were a separate "species" of humans that did not survive to our day:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0618neandertal.asp

so what is not expected in the creation model then? are you going to address things like whale hind leg atavisms and so on? Biblically whales were created straight into the sea, so there is no reason for them to have the genetic code for legs. however this is sometimes expressed.

Sorry, I was avoiding these because it was a divergence from the topic at hand - whether evolution is philosophy or science. If we're agreed on this then I'm happy to answer. Bear in mind that the creation model includes natural selection, and the previously mentioned scientific definition of evolution - but not the greater philosophical model of evolution.
What is not expected in the creation model?
* Old earth dates (>6000y) (in contrast, young earth dates are not expected by the general theory of evolution and therefore are rejected on that basis)
* All living things sharing a single common ancestor
* Humans having a common ancestor with any animal, eg fish, birds, etc

Hard to say really. If you understand the creation model, you can usually determine if a given scenario is included under the creation model. But such models change, as does the general theory of evolution. After all, science is about discovering, not about staying static. Inheritence, and changes in allele frequencies are proven, and a part of the creation model.

Regarding whales, the answer is that it is no leg, neither vestigial or currently:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/whale_leg.asp

so if things can hybridize they are of the same kind, and if they can't they still might be of the same kind. how is this helpful in any way? how can one actually determine whether two species are from the same kind?

And how does one tell if something is of one species or another? It is an incomplete and arbitrary method to assign an animal to one species, or to say it is a new. Let's make the following assumptions:
1. There are at least two different kinds that were created in the beginning
2. All living things today descended from one of the initial kinds
3. The different kinds and their offspring are incapable of breeding with each other
Given those assumptions, what method would you devise to fit a species into one or another kind? Just because there is no perfect method of assigning species to kinds does NOT mean that the kinds never existed. That is a poor argument. The kinds could easily have existed, and if they did then this is the problem we would have in trying to allocate species to them.
Perhaps a DNA test of some sort would enable us to allocate species to their respective kinds.

well there is still the huge problem of not even being able to define a kind. what kind do all the fossils fit in? particularly things that are part way between one species and another, but also quite different from both?

If evolutionists can accurately trace one species being descended from another, then such research and methods would help creationists in determining a tree from original kinds. I'm not sure why any of this is a problem. Just because we don't know what the initial kinds were does not mean they don't exist. We do not argue that something does not exist, or is wrong, merely because don't understand it.
I guess I'm just failing to see why you think it's a problem that creationists are unable to perfectly fit existing species as belonging to one or another kind.

yes, there are alot. If you have a look for Frumious Bandersnatch (he hasn't been around for a while, so do a search), or JGMEERT's threads there are a great number of geological threads. which the likes of the RATE project cannot address. There is also the complete failure to actually find a mechanism for accelerated radioactive decay for the vast majority of isotopes (there are a couple that can use things like electron capture, but these are rare) and also features like the Oklo Phenomenon.

Perhaps something good for another topic then - however, my understanding was that the RATE project was very young and only beginning it's research.

no problem sorry for being edgy at the start, thanks for not taking it too badly

No problem, I find these discussions are much more profitable when both are talking civilized, so I try to remain composed as much as I can Sometimes I fail, but mostly I don't.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

Tyreth-No, I think you are missing the point, 6,000 years is very incompatible with the theory of evolution, as well as common sense.

Perhaps it is incompatible with what people are commonly taught is sensible, but you will need to be more precise in your reasons for believing 6000 years is incompatible. The scientific theory of evolution says nothing about the age of the world. Consider that if two mixed race couples' children have children, that the third generation of children will begin to show a variety of skin colours that their parents didn't have. Genetic characteristics change in one generation. Consider also mixed breed animals. The children are very different in just one generation. So then, given a model that explains the origin of genetic diversity in an initial creation, we would expect it to take 6,000 years or much less to show the kind of diversity we see today. Inheritence of already existing non-harmful traits is well observed, and natural selection plays on this. The creation of new traits through mutations is an insufficient explanation for the creation of today's diversity, nor is such a process observed well enough to be considered "proven". It is also far more likely impossible than unlikely, considering the role recessive mutations play:
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-089.htm

Please forgive me if my post is a bit incoherent, I'm sleepy and rambling a bit more than usual.

 

[bebopfreak15]

I just want to know why its so hard to believe the bible might be inerrant? it takes a lot more faith to believe evolutionary theories than creationism.

 

[ForeRunner]

Because it is exactly the same as saying "The Once And Future King" is inerrant.

 

[shenzhou]

it takes a lot more faith to believe evolutionary theories than creationism.

It doesn't take faith to accept evidence, what does take faith is to ignore all the evidence for evolution and an ancient earth and still believe in a particular (repeatedly falsified) human interpretation of the bible.

see for example: 'Geological Sciences v. YEC/Flood Geology' http://www.christianforums.com/t41209 listing unrefuted falsifications of the flood

and my thread on evidence for human relatedness to the other apes: http://www.christianforums.com/t86995

 

[LewisWildermuth]

I just want to know why its so hard to believe the bible might be inerrant? it takes a lot more faith to believe evolutionary theories than creationism.

Inerrant in what aspects?



Inerrant as a literal history book?

Since some of the events the Bible talks about have been brought into serious question by archeological digs in the middle east that would seem to throw historical inerrancy out...



Inerrant as a science book?

Well, messing up on the value of pi and the sky being solid and the like seem to point out that it is not inerrant as a science book.



Inerrant as a guide to what laws Jews and Christians have to follow?

Well, since Jesus himself pointed out several of the levitical laws that he thought were wrong it does not seem to be inerrant there.



So how is the Bible inerrant?