Define 'species'

[Ondoher]

I am not convinced that either element of evoltutionary biology is warranted by the evidence. I am of course aware that their is evidence and its based on naturalistic assumptions as well.

All science is methodologically naturalistic. If you don't like science, what method would you propose to replace it?

 

[Vance]

How very Darwinian, you don't define you're central term or the premise you want to defend as an antithesis and yet claim to refute mine.

What? YOU made a proposition, I falsifiied it, it is up to you to show the flaw in my falsification. You seem unable to do this.

My alternate thesis is very simple, and I have already stated it: belief in evolution, common descent, or even common descent from a single ancestor, is NOT inexplicably intertwined with naturalistic assumptions (as you propose). This is proven by those many Christians who do not hold these assumptions, but do accept the scientific principles named above.

Saying it does not make it so and you're argument is at best pedantic oversimplifications of the issues. .

Hey, it was YOUR proposal, not mine. I just falsified it. Just explain the flaw in the falsification.

That's an interesting claim, who are they and how do they figure? Presently you're statement is suspended by my ability to take you're word for it, surely you have something a little more substantive..

Who are they? Well, every theistic evolutionist on these boards! All those Christians around the world who accept those scientific principles. None of them accept the naturalistic assumption that there is a natural explanation for everything.

Of course, even ONE would falsify your proposition, but tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands even more so.

The same holds true for the rejection of the creationist model in the dialectic of materialistic humanism, aka liberal theology. They claim to believe in God but just redefine Him so that he fits their philosophy. You are quite right that this is philosophical and theological based concepts, where you fail the burden of proof is that this is true of evolutionary biology as well..

No, the Creationist model is not rejected by Christians on theological or philosophical grounds, but on evidentiary grounds combined with literary analysis of the text. You can talk to an entire group and say, "no, that is NOT what you believe, and that is NOT why you believe it!" Unless, of course, you want to call us all liars.

We do not redefine God to fit ANY philosophies, we just don't CONFINE Him to any particular Scriptural interpretative process, like literalism.

Sounds like you have understood what I am saying dispite yourself. That is precisely what natural selection is, but you missed the heart of the issue. It's not common descent that is at issue since most creationist would agree with that, it's descent from a single common ancestor. This is readily disproven both from natural science, theology, and most importantly, it's flawed premise as a philosophy of science.

Oh, I understood what you have been saying all right, as my last paragraph above points out. WE are the threat to your whole deck of cards, and you must dismiss the theistic evolutionist in order for what you say to make any sense at all.

As for common descent, you still have refused to tell us EXACTLY where you believe this level of common descent began. At what level was the "kinds"? You keep talking about a model that works, but have yet to propose it.

And you can talk all you want about the proposals of evolutionary science being contrary to the evidence of natural science, but you have yet to bring the goods. How can you expect us to take this comment seriously when you just state it, and never back it up?

There is also no theological issue or philosophical issue that you have established, either.

 

[mark kennedy]

What? YOU made a proposition, I falsifiied it, it is up to you to show the flaw in my falsification. You seem unable to do this.

My alternate thesis is very simple, and I have already stated it: belief in evolution, common descent, or even common descent from a single ancestor, is NOT inexplicably intertwined with naturalistic assumptions (as you propose). This is proven by those many Christians who do not hold these assumptions, but do accept the scientific principles named above.

All I have to go on for that is you're word, and frankly it doesn't do it for me. You talk in generalities while I have repeatedly brought up relevant sources to support my position. I can quote biology textbooks, essays, books, websites and all this without ever quoting a single creationist that insists on naturalistic assumptions at the heart of the emphasis. The God of the Bible as the supernatural, omnipotent creator of life is completly rejected. The concept of the war of nature is in the philosophical and theological rhetoric of TE as well as the atheistic Darwinian is completly identical at the heart of the emphasis. There is not a discernable difference, the Scripture are seen as nothing more then elaborate fables and that is simple not what the Bible says.

Hey, it was YOUR proposal, not mine. I just falsified it. Just explain the flaw in the falsification.

My original proposal is that natural selection is the elimination of inferior individules, random variations, gradual accumulation of changes and non-random selection is exclusivly naturalistic. This was introduced through dialectical humanism into Christain theology and God was simply redefined and the Bible rationalized away into obscurity. You never did anything more then insist that you were right and I was wrong. This is hardly substantive, no matter how much you insist that it is.

Who are they? Well, every theistic evolutionist on these boards! All those Christians around the world who accept those scientific principles. None of them accept the naturalistic assumption that there is a natural explanation for everything.

You forget that I debate them as much as I do atheistic apologists for evolution and there is no substantive difference in their argument. They tend to be more civil but the naturalistic assumptions are evident and obvious. God acting in time and space as an expression of His soverign will is completly absent. Now if you would like to get into the details of the theology that is used to misrepresent New Testament theology we can go to either the Philosophy or liberal theology forum. My focus here was originally the definition of species.

As for common descent, you still have refused to tell us EXACTLY where you believe this level of common descent began. At what level was the "kinds"? You keep talking about a model that works, but have yet to propose it.

And you can talk all you want about the proposals of evolutionary science being contrary to the evidence of natural science, but you have yet to bring the goods. How can you expect us to take this comment seriously when you just state it, and never back it up?

There is also no theological issue or philosophical issue that you have established, either.

There is no real reason to rehash this since I have quoted as much authoritive source material as you would reasonably require. Now if you want a formal positive statement then I am more then willing to provide it. In fact, I would not mind participating in a thread that compares both evolutionary biology and creationism to the theistic evolutionary concepts as theology and a philosophy of science if you would like to do that.

Bottomline there is no discernable difference between Mayr and Darwin's concept of natural selection and Theistic evolution.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Who are they? Well, every theistic evolutionist on these boards! All those Christians around the world who accept those scientific principles. None of them accept the naturalistic assumption that there is a natural explanation for everything.

Of course, even ONE would falsify your proposition, but tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands even more so.

Its much worse than that. My best estimate is that you guys number over 100 million in the United States alone.

Less than one third of the world are Christians, and creationists, particularly Young-Earth creationists, are an already small, and rapidly dwindling percentage of the whole everywhere but in the United States, the only 1st world nation with a substantial proportion of creationists in the Christian population, where they are about half-and-half. Both divisions combined account for approximately 80% of the population in this overwhelmingly Christian country. That means just the Christian collective of theistic evolutionists accounts for 40% of the total 294,424,462 people (at the moment I looked this up) and taken on a global scale, that's about a billion proofs that Mark Kennedy is wrong about this too.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

That means just the Christian collective of theistic evolutionists accounts for 40% of the total 294,424,462 people (at the moment I looked this up) and taken on a global scale, that's about a billion proofs that Mark Kennedy is wrong about this too.

To be fair, details on the number of creationists in other countries is scanty. For example, I've seen the number of creationists in Austrialia estimated at anywhere from a few percent to up to 20 percent.

But based on the general activities of creationists, it's a safe bet the U.S. has the majority.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

I can quote biology textbooks, essays, books, websites and all this without ever quoting a single creationist that insists on naturalistic assumptions at the heart of the emphasis. The God of the Bible as the supernatural, omnipotent creator of life is completly rejected.

You still don't seem to understand that God is "rejected" (left out would be a better term) from science because God is undefined. You simply can't quantify God's effect on things in a meaningful manner. This is why science cannot work with God as an explanation, because simply by invoking God, you avoid the explanation altogether.

Unless you have a way to quantify God, then science simply can't touch the issue.

 

[yossarian]

It's not common descent that is at issue since most creationist would agree with that, it's descent from a single common ancestor. This is readily disproven both from natural science, theology, and most importantly, it's flawed premise as a philosophy of science.

unfortunately for you, every extant organism fits on the phylogenetic tree

so no, of course it isn't disproven

 

[yossarian]

My original proposal is that natural selection is the elimination of inferior individules, random variations, gradual accumulation of changes and non-random selection is exclusivly naturalistic

and the very same natural selection is invoked by creationists, because of its undeniable truth

something about a log and a splinter

 

[knuckle50]

I would consider it a very distinct possibility -- but I would also consider it a great cruelty to bring such a hybrid child into the world. The child would be neither chimp nor human, yet most likely intelligent enough to be aware of this and feel not without a community, or without a social life, or without a nation, but without even a species to call his own. For less intelligent creatures who don't really understand this, it's not so bad. But for a half-chimp, half-human child, I think it could very well be horribly damaging.

and yet to deliver the world from ignorance, would it not be worth it?

 

[Vance]

Mark, then you are, indeed, calling all theistic evolution liars.

You said very clearly that evolution was inextricably intertwined with the naturalistic assumptions that there is a natural explanation for everything.

My falsification is NOT just my statements, it is the EXISTENCE of hundreds of thousands of Christians who do NOT hold such assumptions but DO accept evolution, including a common ancestor.

Now, the ONLY way you could avoid this falsification of your statement is by saying that ALL of these theistic evolutionists are lying, that they really DO hold such naturalistic assumptions. More particularly, you have to say that all the theistic evolutionists on this forum are liars.

Are you saying that?

I will make it easy for you to make this choice. I am a Christian. I believe that God created everything. I believe that He designed the whole nine-yards. I believe that it is ALL here by way of a supernatural agent using a supernatural event. I definitely do NOT believe that there is a natural evidence for everything that has happened since this universe began. I believe that God has, and does, interact directly with His Creation in very specific ways, including miracles, guiding of specific events, the giving of the laws and of His Son for redemption. Thus, I do NOT hold to any naturalistic assumption that there is a natural explanation for everything. Not by a long shot.

I also believe that God created this universe billions of years ago and all the various species we see today got here by way of evolution and common descent, even possibly going back to a common ancestor.

OK. So, only one of two things can be true:

1. I am lying.

2. Your proposition is just dead wrong.

Now, rather than evade this question, or talk around it, just tell me which it is.

And, as for your proposition for an alternative to the current evolutionary model, I am asking for a specific model, not your evidentiary arguments. If what you are saying is true in the least, you should be able to put together a clear model of how it all happened that holds up to scientific scrutiny. We are not talking one that matches your theology or philosophy, those are easy to come up with and don't prove anything.

Just tell us how it all happened, when it happened (even generally), and what were the kinds from which all current species developed. You don't even have to provide the evidentiary support for this yet. Just an explanation of the model itself would do.

If you can't provide that, then we must ask why. Is it because you don't have one or that you won't provide it. If you don't have one, or can't develop one, then the question would be why not?

 

[gluadys]

No, it makes the claim that life emerged from a single common ancestor (unicellular) that itself emerged from a 'warm little pond'. What he was saying is that God had nothing to do with it. Check out my signiture, the part in blue was written by his grandfather, a famous atheistic intellectual. Darwin went into the family buisness by attacking the concept of God creating life and replacing it with natural selection. Just read his introduction and he lays out his whole premise.

Erasmus Darwin may have been an athiest, but that doesn't show up in these lines of poetry. They are perfectly consistent with a theistic world-view.

Oh, and I have read the whole poem too.

 

[gluadys]

Evolution on the other hand was a common view amoung the creationists of his time, but they maintained that it was multiple common ancestors that were fully formed in history as God's 'special creation'.

No, it was a minority view.

The commonest view was "immutability of species". That is the view that Darwin opposed.

Creationists only divorced the Genesis "kind" from the scientific "species" (which is simply a latinized version of "kind") when they could no longer deny that species were not immutable.

The best evidence that this is true are the many "educational" resources written by and for creationists which carefully explain TO creationists the differences between "kind" and "species" and the concomitant differences between "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution" as re-defined by creationists.

This sort of "education" would not be needed if evolution within limits was already the common view of creationists.

 

[mark kennedy]

Erasmus Darwin may have been an athiest, but that doesn't show up in these lines of poetry. They are perfectly consistent with a theistic world-view.

Oh, and I have read the whole poem too.

Sure, if you redifine God as a purely naturalistic process. I have read the poem to and it's anything but theistic.

 

[Aron-Ra]

It is dialectic by definiton and the genetics are the only way it can go.

And genetics confirm taxonomy.

The Darwinian model does not work, it never did. The only real science here is the reasoning that is gleaned from what we can learn from existing living systems.

You have already several times agreed with the Darwinian model; Natural selection, sexual selection, mass-procreation, inheritance, (a Darwinian concept which Mendel confirmed) so you've already stated that the Darwinian model does work. The only thing you pretend not to accept is common ancestry. But you keep forgetting that I'm not arguing for a single universal common ancestor, but for varying stages of common ancestry, such as you have already admitted to, betraying even your concept of Biblical "kinds".

There are only two possible alternatives, you are forced to choose between them. If you go with you're naturalistic assumptions then any theistic explaination of our origins is rejected. If you let God, the omnipotent primary first cause in, even just a little, then the naturalistic assumptions are at risk.

I take the third option. Since everything I believe is tentative, and based strictly on evidence and reason, then I will be forced to consider your magic invisible ghost, (whether I want to or not) the instant you show me some reason to. What have you got? Why should I believe in a god?

I did not make the two mutually exclusive I am just playing the cards that are handed to me.

I don't think you were dealt a full deck.

I realize that you are not aware of the premise but I have showed it to you repeatedly, you are not argueing against me when you say this is not a philisophical premise, you are arguing against Mayr and the modern systhesis, and I think you know that.

I know for certain that I am not. You forget, I've read them, and I've read what you have to say about them. You demonstrate clearly that you don't even understand the meanings of the quotes you insist on using to speak for you.

Remember the link you cited which said that Archaeopteryx had a reptilian respiration system, just like any other dinosaur? The same site you tried to use to oppose avian evolution adamantly insisted that birds were very closely-related to dinosaurs, and that both had evolved from a common ancestor with crocodiles.

My position is only opposed by a fringe of superstitious extremists. Your position on the other hand, has not only pitted you against the entire global scientific community, but also against Christianity at large. The very best minds in both arenas stand united against you and your nigh-illiterate babble.

I know that evolution is the change in gene frequencies over time and that you have no demonstrated mechanism for evolution on the scale you presume.

Not on the scale I would like to yet, which only awaits your proper response. But both of us have demonstrated the same mechanisms, including the Mendelian laws of genetic inheritance, punctuated equilibrium, natural and artificial selective processes, etc., all of which you stated you already agreed with. I have a heckuva lot more I could show you, and will once you conjure the courage or the capacity to show some accountability, and properly address my points and queries as you said you would. The one thing you said you didn't agree with was mutation, and you tried to argue against that with more quotes you either didn't read or didn't understand. Remember how I disproved your Pubmed comment with another quote from the very same page? Remember when I challenged you to explain how you thought your Smithsonian quotes were supposed to challenge my position? You couldn't even answer that!

It is pure rhethoric and I am supprised that you haven't realized that, or just don't want to admitt it.

Got a mirror, Mark? My position is not rhetoric, but yours is, and I think you have already realized both of these things. That's why you're squirming so defensibly now.

I understand how those terms are established and the emphasis is subjective. That is not how natural science is supposed to work and taxonomy is based on presumption and after thought, that is why it is in a constant state of flux, it can't handle the burden of proof.

As you've just seen from yet another of your own references, as with the last ones too, it does handle the burden of proof. But its not subjective, as you would have realized by now if you had the courage and faith in your convictions enough to answer the simple questions I posed to you, the ones you're obviously too frightened to answer. What is a monkey, Mark? What is an ape? C'mon, Mark. You said "words mean things", so what does "ape" mean, exactly? Describe for me how we could recognize a species as a monkey or ape if we ever found a new one. Give me your supposedly subjective definition of that, and we'll see how well that handles the burden of scientific proof. Let's see how these are determined by presumption and afterthought, Mark. Let's test how subjective they are.

I think you already know you can't answer these questions without shooting yourself in the foot, and destroying your own position all by yourself.

I am disappointed that you drew me into the circular reasoning of cladisitics. You have had a big time of it pretending to offer proof but offering nothing of substance that supports the single common ancestor model.

I'm disappointed that I have so many volumes of evidence I can't begin to show if you're still too scared to answer my simple questions when and how they were asked.

You don't know the substantive difference between Hitler's political philosophy and Darwin's natural selection do you?

By your own admission, I have already answered that multiple times, both in our debate, and a couple of times in this thread. Yes, I do know the difference, Mark. Now do you know the difference between them and the tenets of the Christian Identity, a strictly creationist group which includes nazis?

How about the substantive difference between Mayr and Darwin, you don't have an answer for that either. So you resort to name calling. Very disappointing, very disappointing indeed.

I don't think you ever asked me for the difference between Mayr and Darwin. What are you talking about? And the name-calling was your job, along with all the instigative attempts at emotional pleas and negative associations. All playground-level tactics, Mark. And I already told you, they don't work on me.

You just couldn't handle it when you cladistics were not proof positive could you?

By virtue of the fact that you couldn't conduct any discussion of that, it would seem that you can't handle what it does prove. Of course you could prove me wrong, if you could answer the questions as you agreed you would.

I got tired of you're labyrinth of undefined and undemonstrated relationships, you were trying to run me in circles but I know where the heart of the emphasis is and you didn't like it when I focused on it.

But you never did focus on it, Mark. You ran your merry circles alright, but you usually refused to answer my simple straight-forward questions on anything relevant. I did define all my terms, sir, where you (still) refuse to do the same dispite repeated requests. And when you rejected my definition, I asked you for yours, specifically to demonstrate these relationships in the most effective way possible. But if all you do is cower away from all my simplest queries, then what can I do?

You are the one who resorted to name nalling when you had nothing else to offer.

I'll never run out of ammo in this discussion; there is too much available. But you never had anything to offer in the first place. That's why you resorted to name-calling early on, with all your negative associations, calling me a neo-Darwinian, and associating that with communists and nazis, etc. You even admitted that you had behaved inappropriately in doing so. I did no more than call you a hypocrite, which you still are, by your own choice of tactics.

All you arguments were based on a free floating definitions that you never provided.

In our debate, I provided every definition you should have needed. Then I even asked if there was anything else you needed me to define. You never answered that question either. But you bellyached quite a bit when I suggested you could look up some of the unfamiliar words easily enough from any independent source you liked, rather than having to get them all from me. This was so that you could see that my position was objective, and supported by mainstream science. But you were outraged, and just railed against me personally, again, as you have from the start, and have continue to do consistently, while trying to project your faults onto me. The worst thing I ever did was to ask you to provide your own definitions, so that I could prove to you that we weren't just arguing semantics, or "floating definitions", like you kept trying to assert. You still refuse to offer your own definitions, but you said you rejected the ones I provided, and now pretend I never even gave any. Did you forget that we have all this archived in writing?

I supported my arguments from actual science and authoritive sources, you response was to start call me names.

But you didn't understand any of the sources you cited, Mark. For example:

find the antitheistic philosophy in a pubmed article mark, its simple

They actually study genetics and medical science they don't waste their time on mythical evolutionary aancestors. That requires a philosopher like Darwin.

I think you'd better take another look at your PubMed site, Mark. because they do actually study genetics and medical science, but when you type "common ancestor" in their search window, you'll see that they repeatedly state that all of that evidence demands evolutionary common ancestry.

What it does is to refute a literal interpretation of what can only be either a parable or a myth, but that we all know can't possibly be literally true.

We know nothing of the sort,

Yes we do, Mark. Are you now going to argue that the Earth was once the only thing in the entire universe? That the billions of other stars in our galaxy, as well as all the billions of other galaxies, -were all created after our puny little planet? Or that there were plants on Earth before the sun, or any of the other celestial bodies even existed? Can snakes talk, Mark? Do you really intend to argue for a giant crystal firmament with windows in it? Yes, for these and many many other reasons, we do know for absolutely certain that Genesis cannot be literally true.

what do you know of faith in God, you tossed you're faith and went after modern mythology. You took the broad road and I hope you enjoy the ride.

I do, thank you. It was like turning on a light and being able to see at last. I discovered that faith was naught but a means of deliberate self-deception, and that anything that was really real, wouldn't need my faith to stay that way. I also realized that nothing in the universe really requires faith except a bad liar. So I gave it up. And I am indeed a whole lot healthier because of it.

 

[Aron-Ra]

The terms of the debate should have been negotiated and had I known that you were going to post the endless rationalizations you did I would have made sure you understood the rules of the forum.

If the forum's suggestions were to supercede our rules, then there could have been no debate, because it was (and still is) imperative to deal with every point and every query, even though you still refuse to do so. Had I known how you would conduct yourself, I would have demanded you select three Christian moderators to force you to adhere to the rules of properly addressing each point and query, and to concede the many points you've clearly lost already.

You post these endless rants and it takes two posts to get to anything of substance.

Its all substantive, or would be if I didn't have to waste so much time countering your paranoid and sensationalist misrepresentations. You've avoided the substance every time it was presented.

One of the first rules was that if you didn't like the argument you address the argument, you instead started you name nalling.

I properly addressed every one of your arguments without exception, where you have dodged most of mine.

Go ahead and pretend to have a real argument, but try to find one that works, that's the challenge.

Yes, and I alone have met that challenge. When will you?

Yea right, any superficial simularity is a homology and any difference is a morphology.

As has already been pointed out, you're still using these terms incorrectly. And every time you say "superficial similarities" you're talking about fundamental ones. Again, I could only prove this to you if you had what it takes to answer my questions honestly without being so defensive and evasive.

You made it clear that you neither understand the rationale or the substantive reasoning that goes into creating clads.

Really? Then by all means, demonstrate that for me, Mark. How do you determine the clades for monkeys or apes?

It's an organizational system, nothing more, get over it. Men are not apes and this is obvious when you actually compare them using the same criteria that modern taxonomy uses. Language, fire, and tools.

But taxonomy doesn't use these. I could see a taxonomic argument for language, but paleoanthropologists have concluded that Homo habilis, (whom you say is related to us) wasn't capable of modern human language anyway. Nor is there any evidence they made fire. All they did was to make tools which were just slightly more sophistocated than those of the Australopiths, which were just slightly better than those of chimpanzees.

You have no real answer for this which is why you ignore these all important distinctions.

But I don't ignore them! Look, there are important distinctions between penguins and other birds too, right? I mean no other bird lives like a penguin, or swims like a penguin, or has wings like a penguin. So according to you, penguins can't be birds unless you ignore all these important distinctions. This proves that it is you who has not a clue how clades are constructed. Penguins are different from any other bird, just as we are different from other apes. But penguins are still birds and men are still apes, both according to their fundamental (as opposed to superficial) structure.

The most obvious fallacy here is that you don't realize that there is such a thing as a philosophy of science, that are you are not going to admit it.

I didn't realize you were talking about the philosophy of science. How could I, when you said you accepted the philosophy of science yourself? Remember when you said that Mendel and PubMed both did "real" science, and that you supported that, even though both of them supported Darwin? You're so inconsistent and self-contradictory, its hard to tell what you're talking about. But the various points I'm trying to make still aren't philosophical.

Now the truth is that you don't know who I worship because you are determined to deny that God even exists.

No, the truth is that you're determined to distort this discussion by misrepresenting everything you can, and that intent is obviously deliberate. I am not determined to deny anything. Atheism is a resignation, not a resolve. I gave up believing in God because I couldn't find anything to imply that such a thing was really real. Instead, I found a wealth of indications that it wasn't real, and never was. I didn't decide not to believe, and I wouldn't have made that choice if I had the choice to make. Did you choose not to believe in Santa Clause? Or were you faced with the same scenario I was? That there was absolutely no reason to believe in him, and a whole lot of reasons not to? Could you have chosen to believe in him anyway? Are you determined to deny that Santa exists? I just couldn't force myself to believe in your particular Santa-God anymore.

I have yet to even discuss the Bible,

I know. I disproved your flood myth a couple of times, but you refused to comment on it either time.

we spent all of our time argueing the validity of these charts and graphs.

I wish we had. But you refused to do that.

You never have tried to defend how this is done and resort to name calling as a matter of course. Don't blame me if you're arguments are unconvincing.

If you don't like being called a hypocrite, stop acting like one. I have tried to defend/explain how this is done, and to do so with specific examples, which is why I asked you to define what a monkey or an ape is. When you get up the gumption to answer that one, we can continue.

We have been on topic you just can't handle real questions. You have a big time of it when you throw around terms you do not have any intention of defining but you have no demonstrated mechanism. This is obvious, this is unavoidable.

Your questions were all too easy to counter, and I have answered absolutely every one you ever asked, where you have repeatedly and deliberately ignored most of mine. I have also demonstrated some of the mechanisms, and have plenty more to show once you uphold your end of the agreement.

You agreed with every major point I made, admitting that you already believed most of them yourself.

What major points?

1. Each of the "Darwinian" principles of evolution via natural selection.
2. Varying stages of common ancestry for homoines, anthropoids, eurypterids, varanoids, felids, cattle, and who knows what else, if you would just answer the questions out of common courtesy and rationale.
3. That our species evolved from another, less derived one, as opposed to being specially-created in our current form, as is the normally universal creationist position.

You keep doing this, pretending to prove what you never bothered to qualified. This is nothing more then a lot of hot air, intensity is not veracity and I don't care how much emotion you pour into this, you failed the burden of proof.

As I said before, my emotions aren't involved at all. Need I remind that I have repeatedly asked you to stop the paranoid, instigative quips, and stay on-topic as you promised you would? Everyone who discusses these topics with you has the same complaint; that we can all solidly prove our various points. But you can't counter that even well enough to show that you comprehend the argument, and automatically retort with an unthinking reflex denial. "Did not", "Says you", and "Nu-Uhh" sound like a pretty good summation of the best of your debate skills in the common opinion on this board of atheists and Christians alike.

It doesn't matter how many times you say that it is not true. There is such a thing as a philosophy of science whether you want to admit it or not.

I did admit it when I said that I never strayed from the philosophy of science. But the subjects I'm trying to discuss are not a matter of philosophy, nor are they semantics. You would understand that if you were capable of debating me point-by-point as I do you. This really could be a great debate if you could only do that.

Real science does but you like the myth better.

Define "real science". Consider this another flat-out challenge which I expect you'll just ignore, as you've done with almost all the others.

You didn't answer a critical question that pointed out the substantive element evident in Darwin, Mayr and Hitler.

I've answered every question you've asked, without exception, to the best of my ability. The very few questions you did eventually answer (three posts late) were all wrong answers even by your standards.

You just resort to name calling, did it ever occur to you that this was a real problem with natural selection and the survival of the fittest?

What was? Maybe you should go back and read the answer you say I didn't give in message #14 of our debate, and compare that to message #296 of this thread, when I answered that again. Then if you would please, tell me exactly how fascist ignorance of evolution or ethnocentric British society has anything at all to do with the natural selection processes in biology. While you're at it, maybe you can tell me how the violently racist tenets of the Christian Identity are a real problem for divine creation?

He would not have went into the ridicule of Christian conviction had that been true. Christian's don't treat one another that way and a humanist is just someone who puts their philosophy in theological terms while removing the real meaning. It's a lot like taxonomy in that regards.

Your only consistency is in being dead-wrong on every point, every time.

(1.) Christians do treat other Christians that way. You treat other Christians that way. I've seen you do it several times right here on this board, even in this very thread. Other Christians do things like referring to Catholics as "Mary-worshipping pagans" or they say other denominations are "deceived by Satan", or they ban Mormons from posting to the Christians-only boards, or they ridicule other Christian's perspectives by calling them humanists, and making up bogus definitions to do it.

(2.) It seems we were both wrong about what a humanist is. A Christian humanist is one who's philosophy is based on Christian beliefs about the nature of God, and which advocate people's fulfillment by personal effort. ReligiousToleranc.org lists many definitions of different types of humanists, but your definition doesn't appear there, nor did it show up on any of the specifically humanist sites I went to. The only definition I ever knew, that of a rational atheist, was listed in most of these. Where did you get your woefully inaccurate definition?

I know you won't answer this question, because you can't, because you just made up a definition you knew was wrong just because it was inflammatory, just like your stupid quip about it being like taxonomy. But I have to ask the question anyway.

This is the only country in the world that has not totally betrayed it's Christian heritage.

Who feeds you all this misinformation?

(1.) This country was founded by Deists, not Christians. Most of the names on the Declaration of Independence, and the first half-dozen presidents were Deists. Not even Lincoln was Christian! The treaty of Tripoli even denies that the U.S. is a Christian nation in any way. We didn't start to become one until the Great Reformation of the 1830s.

(2.) Look at a globe and find the United States. Now look at everything south of our border all the way passed the equator, down to the Antarctic circle. All those nations are at least as Christian as we are, or ever were.

I really don't want to talk religion with you, it makes me ill.

Just wait ''til we get started. I am the last person you'll ever want to discuss religion with, that's for sure.

You missed the whole point of my statement in the debate and you are playing a game you can't win.

I have already won. Its not even possible for me to lose. And I think I understand everything you've tried to say, while you've tried to distort everything I say.

Notice the question of what I don't like about her theology didn't come up. That's the problem with presumption, it gets to be a nasty habit.

No presumption necessary. You only knew one thing about her theology. She realized that the Bible was written by men, and that these stories were not reliable eyewitness accounts, therefore they were not the final authority. And as you have already expressed several times, your "theology" [idolatry] demands that the words of the Biblical authors be elevated over and above even the evidence provided in creation by the work of God himself. Even the Biblical authors warned against doing this.

Idolatry is worshiping and serving the creature more then the creator. What you don't know about idolatry could fill volumns.

But one of the volumes that support my definition is the Bible itself. Where did you get your definition from?

Me thinks thou dose protest too much

I told you, you can't intimidate me, and you certainly can't rile me. So why do you try?

That's enough of this nonsense. I was expecting something a lot more substantive. I keep waiting for it. I suppose I shouldn't hold my breath or be supprised.

I've learned not to expect anything of substance from you. But if you want something more substantive, then you've got one more post to make to our debate before I can post my reply. Answer the questions about the definition of monkeys and apes, show me how to "discover" the definition of species in the various interrelated skulls I showed you, so that the word "species" can be precisely defined in paleofauna. Explain how you determined two of those hominines to be related, and how you decided that the third one was not. Tell me what evidence you would accept that could convince you if my position is true. Then you can look at all the points you've lost, (and snipped from your reply) and concede them honorably as you agreed to do at the onset. You might also take a stab at providing the other answers and citations I asked for, and explain why you ever believed the Bible to be a reliable authority on anything. These are all direct questions which you agreed to answer to the best of your ability, but have instead only repeatedly ignored.

 

[Jet Black]

Sure, if you redifine God as a purely naturalistic process. I have read the poem to and it's anything but theistic.

why the incesant disconnect between theism and nature?

 

[Jet Black]

Sure, if you redifine God as a purely naturalistic process. I have read the poem to and it's anything but theistic.

nursed?

 

[Aron-Ra]

Sure, if you redifine God as a purely naturalistic process. I have read the poem to and it's anything but theistic.

It can be interpreted theistically whether you're a Deist, theistic evolutionist, Intelligent Design Theorist, or even a Biblical literalist creationist reading Genesis 1. Even polytheists can accept that line as theistic. Remember, in Enuma Elish, Tiamat was the biological mother of all the other gods, and she was the spirit of the ocean. So even in the oldest creationist myths, all life came from the sea.

And besides, logically, I would think that if God exists, then the words "God" and "nature" should be synonemous.

 

[mark kennedy]

If the forum's suggestions were to supercede our rules, then there could have been no debate, because it was (and still is) imperative to deal with every point and every query, even though you still refuse to do so. Had I known how you would conduct yourself, I would have demanded you select three Christian moderators to force you to adhere to the rules of properly addressing each point and query, and to concede the many points you've clearly lost already.

What was imperative was that you acknowledge the principles and particulars for the worldview you are supposedly defending. Instead evolution as a philosophy is being dismissed as irrelevant, which is absurd. Now if you want to contradict Gould, Mayr, and Darwin that's you're buisness but don't expect me to pretend that what is left is substantive.

What's more any taxonomic clad is going to be drawn up according to the Darwinian model. I wonder through you're little labyrinth of convoluted questions and found in all of them a philosophical premise that has not changed since 1859. What's more these philosophical principles are identical to the national socialism the plauged Europe for the last century.

Its all substantive, or would be if I didn't have to waste so much time countering your paranoid and sensationalist misrepresentations. You've avoided the substance every time it was presented.
I properly addressed every one of your arguments without exception, where you have dodged most of mine.

I didn't dodge them, I dismissed them as convoluted and unqualified philosophical rethoric. This is well within the parameters of the debate rules.

"superficial similarities" you're talking about fundamental ones. Again, I could only prove this to you if you had what it takes to answer my questions honestly without being so defensive and evasive.
Really? Then by all means, demonstrate that for me, Mark. How do you determine the clades for monkeys or apes?

The same way modern taxonomy except unlike you I include language and culture. You never liked to hear this but instead wanted to introduce new terms when you were reminded of this. You posted a great picture of a baby ape and suggested that this little guy recapitiulates evolution, you never elaborated on how this is so.

But taxonomy doesn't use these. I could see a taxonomic argument for language, but paleoanthropologists have concluded that Homo habilis, (whom you say is related to us) wasn't capable of modern human language anyway. Nor is there any evidence they made fire. All they did was to make tools which were just slightly more sophistocated than those of the Australopiths, which were just slightly better than those of chimpanzees.

I am over the homo habilis thing now that I know how they contrived this supposed transition. Homo habilis was most likely just an unusual chimp and I am very suspicious of how their tool making skills are qualified. If it's anything like the way they came up with bipedal chimps it's contrived.

But I don't ignore them! Look, there are important distinctions between penguins and other birds too, right? I mean no other bird lives like a penguin, or swims like a penguin, or has wings like a penguin. So according to you, penguins can't be birds unless you ignore all these important distinctions. This proves that it is you who has not a clue how clades are constructed. Penguins are different from any other bird, just as we are different from other apes. But penguins are still birds and men are still apes, both according to their fundamental (as opposed to superficial) structure.

Penguins are unique birds, I'll grant you that but if they had become extinct a thousand years ago they would be seen as a transitional. One of the fundamental differences between men and apes (or any animal for that matter) is a creative capacity for abstract thought. How many apes can play chess, write software programs, or use a microscope? You consider this line of reasoning substantive, are you kidding me?

I didn't realize you were talking about the philosophy of science. How could I, when you said you accepted the philosophy of science yourself? Remember when you said that Mendel and PubMed both did "real" science, and that you supported that, even though both of them supported Darwin? You're so inconsistent and self-contradictory, its hard to tell what you're talking about. But the various points I'm trying to make still aren't philosophical.

Years ago in a Bible college the Bible and science teacher challenged me to build the best argument I could for evolution. I eventually convinced myself that evolution as a philosophy of science is unavoidable in natural science. However, eliminating God's divine intervention and providence begs the question of proof at crucial points of development. I realize that PubMed and Mendel are prime examples of cutting edge natural science but genetics simply doesn't have a demonstrated mechanism for the transformation from apes to men. What you don't seem to realize is that I can concede most of evolutionary biology's fundamental reasoning and still reject universal common descent on purely scientific grounds.

No, the truth is that you're determined to distort this discussion by misrepresenting everything you can, and that intent is obviously deliberate. I am not determined to deny anything. Atheism is a resignation, not a resolve. I gave up believing in God because I couldn't find anything to imply that such a thing was really real. Instead, I found a wealth of indications that it wasn't real, and never was. I didn't decide not to believe, and I wouldn't have made that choice if I had the choice to make. Did you choose not to believe in Santa Clause? Or were you faced with the same scenario I was? That there was absolutely no reason to believe in him, and a whole lot of reasons not to? Could you have chosen to believe in him anyway? Are you determined to deny that Santa exists? I just couldn't force myself to believe in your particular Santa-God anymore.
I know. I disproved your

Santa Clause is a prime example of how the story gets better with the telling. He was an actual person who made toys for kids when they barely had enough to survive because of high taxes. I have yet to see the slightest indication that a serious documented wittness of flying reindeer but that is the difference between the myth and the history of Santa Clause. Evolution does this, it claims that the natural variations in the gene pool due to meiosis are evolution even though they are better characterized as stasis untill the gene pool is actually rewritten. Mutations are rare and hard to find and yet it is exactly here that the genetic code must be rewritten. This begs the question of proof and I am not impressed with rationalizations to the contrary.

flood myth a couple of times, but you refused to comment on it either time.

I suggested that the gene pool of dogs/wolves are sufficient to account for the variations we see among canines. Just ask yourself how long we have been breading this animals and how many different variations we have seen as a result. We never really got into the Flood that much even though you suggested that we might want to do that after this one is finally over. If we did decide to do that I would be a lot less permissive about the rules.

I wish we had. But you refused to do that.
If you don't like being called a hypocrite, stop acting like one. I have tried to defend/explain how this is done, and to do so with specific examples, which is why I asked you to define what a monkey or an ape is. When you get up the gumption to answer that one, we can continue.

I did repeatedly and you just keep claiming I won't. It's not just about how the skeletons look, it how things like the thumb works. It's the way humans use their intellect to overcome obstacles. I once knew a computer programer that was blind and could actually bowl pretty good. You don't seem to want to face the fact that abstract thought is a telling proof of man having a creative capacity for formal reasoning. This is absent in other primates and I have been making this point from the begining but you just keep insisting that we are apes. Calling me names won't change that.

Your questions were all too easy to counter, and I have answered absolutely every one you ever asked, where you have repeatedly and deliberately ignored most of mine. I have also demonstrated some of the mechanisms, and have plenty more to show once you uphold your end of the agreement.
1. Each of the "Darwinian" principles of evolution via natural selection.

That's were I made the point that Darwin's contribution was philosphical and his reasoning was opposed to divine intervention. The reasoning was shown to have a theological bias and you actually agreed that this is out of place. I won't bother rehashing this here, it will all be in my summary.

2. Varying stages of common ancestry for homoines, anthropoids, eurypterids, varanoids, felids, cattle, and who knows what else, if you would just answer the questions out of common courtesy and rationale.

I never intended to rewrite modern cladistics just to challenge the premise of universal common ancestry. Now you did a bang up job confusing the issue with these endless charts and graphs but you have denied the dialectic of taxonomy, the philosophical premise from Darwin, and the substantive reasoning of leading evolutionary thinkers. That will allso be dealt with at length in the summary.

3. That our species evolved from another, less derived one, as opposed to being specially-created in our current form, as is the normally universal creationist position.

Wow, I haven't even thought of that point yet. 'Less derived', so if the common ancestor were better developed that would be a big boost for creationism. It is amazing that I learn so much more from the evolutionist then I do from creationists. I had not realized that before, thanks Aron-Ra, I really appreciate that insight.

 

[mark kennedy]

As I said before, my emotions aren't involved at all. Need I remind that I have repeatedly asked you to stop the paranoid, instigative quips, and stay on-topic as you promised you would? Everyone who discusses these topics with you has the same complaint; that we can all solidly prove our various points. But you can't counter that even well enough to show that you comprehend the argument, and automatically retort with an unthinking reflex denial. "Did not", "Says you", and "Nu-Uhh" sound like a pretty good summation of the best of your debate skills in the common opinion on this board of atheists and Christians alike.

The complaint I get most often is that I insist that the is an antitheistic bias in evolutionary thought. I don't know why you think I'm paranoid when I am just soooo not worried about it. I have ran the gauntlet here for some time now and it is the denial that evolution is actually a philosophy of science that keeps me interested in these debates. This place is unique in that regards, some of the others I have debated over the years celebrate it, on here they just deny it. I have had a lot of fun watching evolutionary apologists deny their fundamental philosophical premise.

I went through something like this when I was into New Testament apologetics but this is a lot more fun.

I did admit it when I said that I never strayed from the philosophy of science. But the subjects I'm trying to discuss are not a matter of philosophy, nor are they semantics. You would understand that if you were capable of debating me point-by-point as I do you. This really could be a great debate if you could only do that.

Taxonomy is focused on semantics, that is the power of that particular discipline. How the meaning is applied to the terms (or is it vise versa), is what makes it so powerfull. This is about a philosophy of science and you introduced dozens of terms you never defined or even expressed an interest in qualifiying how they were defined. I found very little in the way of substantive information on this and I tried to focus on one aspect. I was going to elaborate on the Leaky find because it was a crucial point of demonstration. I was hoping you would elaborate on how the new terminology was introduced, and most importantly, why it was important. You just did you're little victory dance and started calling me names. I don't get it, if you wanted to focus on taxonomy exclusivly then why didn't you just say so?

Define "real science". Consider this another flat-out challenge which I expect you'll just ignore, as you've done with almost all the others.

Science is a word that simply means 'knowledge' what is interesting about this term is that it implies experiencial knowledge. This has long been considered the demonstrated effects of natural science. The real problem is that no one is actually that objective so their is a need for a philosophy of science. This was finally settled with the publication of Newton's 'Principia', that he called the first philosophy of science. The book introduced the scientific community to calculas and math has been the queen of natural science ever since. Math is the only science that is allowed to use deductive reasoning, that is why theology was divorced from natural science the reasoning is apriori (without prior). What is unscientific about evolution is that it makes unique theological claims that and it was specificlly focused on that at the heart of the emphasis, and allways has been.

I've answered every question you've asked, without exception, to the best of my ability. The very few questions you did eventually answer (three posts late) were all wrong answers even by your standards.
What was? Maybe you should go back and read the answer you say I didn't give in message #14 of our debate, and compare that to message #296 of this thread, when I answered that again. Then if you would please, tell me exactly how fascist ignorance of evolution or ethnocentric British society has anything at all to do with the natural selection processes in biology. While you're at it, maybe you can tell me how the violently racist tenets of the Christian Identity are a real problem for divine creation?
Your only consistency is in being dead-wrong on every point, every time.

Darwin and Hitler both claimed this was the heart of the emphasis. You should never have rejected this as having merit without giving it the credit it deserves. I will elaborate on this at length and the main point here is that natural selection is based on the competition not between species, but within. This was called the war of nature by Huxley (Darwin's bulldog) and he said that it resulted in one holocaust after another. Ever wonder why that particular term was applied to the genocide of the Nazi's?

The truth is that you have actually made this too easy. We are discussing the explantions for or origins and their are only two possibilites. I will elaborate on this as well and fully intend to show where the debate was derailed and it was due exclusivly to the introduction of highly semantical taxonomic relationships based on a philosophical premise.

(1.) Christians do treat other Christians that way. You treat other Christians that way. I've seen you do it several times right here on this board, even in this very thread. Other Christians do things like referring to Catholics as "Mary-worshipping pagans" or they say other denominations are "deceived by Satan", or they ban Mormons from posting to the Christians-only boards, or they ridicule other Christian's perspectives by calling them humanists, and making up bogus definitions to do it.

As far as I know the Catholics have their own discussion forum and the Mormons are considered a cult. Now as far as humanism being introduced into Christian theology this has been one of the tricks that dialectical humanism has been doing for nearly a hundred years. It's not ridicule if you are indeed a humanist, humanism rejects the traditional definition of God as being the omnipotent Creator of the heavens and the earth. The most telling aspect of humanistic reasoning is the way the judge history, particularly with regards to redemptive history. The supernatural is rejected with the occasional exception of the ressurection. It is not ridicule to say that naturalistic assumptions are antitheistic, it's an obvious fact to anyone who actually reads their theology.

(2.) It seems we were both wrong about what a humanist is. A Christian humanist is one who's philosophy is based on Christian beliefs about the nature of God, and which advocate people's fulfillment by personal effort. ReligiousToleranc.org lists many definitions of different types of humanists, but your definition doesn't appear there, nor did it show up on any of the specifically humanist sites I went to. The only definition I ever knew, that of a rational atheist, was listed in most of these. Where did you get your woefully inaccurate definition?

From liberal theology cross-referenced with the Humanist manifesto for one thing. This is a fairly typical statement that expresses the humanistic rationale of liberal theology:

"Our God is the sould of the universe, its inner mysterious directing power, and creation itself is the supreme miracle,continually enacted before our eyes. The idea of a virgin birth doesn't help us reverence Jesus; it onnly troubles us as somehting out of the ordinary, hard to except, difficult to explain"

(Dr. Palmer, former President of the Chicago Federation of chruches, from his book , Paths to the Presence of God. Quoted in Therefore Stand by Wibur Smith)

He also rejects the resurection which is the heart of New Testament theology and the Gospel.

I know you won't answer this question, because you can't, because you just made up a definition you knew was wrong just because it was inflammatory, just like your stupid quip about it being like taxonomy. But I have to ask the question anyway.
Who feeds you all this misinformation?

It the large body of work that has came to be known as Christian Apologetics. I could get you a bibliography if you're interested, these concepts are nothing new. A couple of names in case you're really interested would be W. Smith, J. McDowell, W. Martain, C. Van Till, they all seen the naturalistic assumptions of liberal theology as contrary to New Testament Christianity. I don't ridicule professing Christians unless they deny the Gospel and it is inextricably linked to God's soveriegn, supernatural intervention in the course of human history. To deny this is to deny the heart of the New Testament.

(1.) This country was founded by Deists, not Christians. Most of the names on the Declaration of Independence, and the first half-dozen presidents were Deists. Not even Lincoln was Christian! The treaty of Tripoli even denies that the U.S. is a Christian nation in any way. We didn't start to become one until the Great Reformation of the 1830s.

Baloney! Now if you want to get into this for real I have debated this issue at length and this Country was founded by Puritan congregationalists. Jefferson could easily be considered an atheist but he allways denied it. He compiled a version of the New Testament that edited out any of the references to the supernatural which should tell you something. People like John Locke, who Jefferson palagerized in the Declaration of Independence, was what we would consider a fundamentalist or and evangelical. Now I would really love to get into this one but we would have to take it to the history forum since it is off topic.

(2.) Look at a globe and find the United States. Now look at everything south of our border all the way passed the equator, down to the Antarctic circle. All those nations are at least as Christian as we are, or ever were.

What that has to do with a discussion of our origins and a working definition of species is a mystery to me.

Just wait ''til we get started. I am the last person you'll ever want to discuss religion with, that's for sure.
I have already won. Its not even possible for me to lose. And I think I understand everything you've tried to say, while you've tried to distort everything I say.

You're really not saying that much and when you finally wrap up you're rants some of what you say is actually very interesting. I don't know what you think you won but anytime you can't be proven wrong then you are not being scientific. Scientific hypothesis has to be falsifiable and scientific theory must be so often demonstrated that it is beyond skepticism. Evolution as far as the change of genes in populations over time is a valid theory, universal common descent is a myth, it is not easy to discern between the two but it is none the less possible. Mind you, you don't need a creationist to do it, you can do it by reading evolutionary literature. I have pointed this out repeatedly and you just deny it, that's not a substantive argument.

No presumption necessary. You only knew one thing about her theology. She realized that the Bible was written by men, and that these stories were not reliable eyewitness accounts, therefore they were not the final authority. And as you have already expressed several times, your "theology" [idolatry] demands that the words of the Biblical authors be elevated over and above even the evidence provided in creation by the work of God himself. Even the Biblical authors warned against doing this.
But one of the volumes that support my definition is the Bible itself. Where did you get your definition from?

I really don't care what you think of my theology since you abandoned theology as a source for knowledge long ago. Idolatry as worshiping and serving the creature more then the Creator is pure Pauline Gospel. I gave you the chapter and verse of a number of passages in the New Testament so don't pretend you don't know where I got it from. You did know that you were argueing against a Biblical worldview from the begining.

I told you, you can't intimidate me, and you certainly can't rile me. So why do you try?

Because its fun watching you go off into these rants. I never intended to intimidate you I am trying to reason with you. You have an enormous amount of knowledge about things I am very interested in and I have learned a great deal. I don't know where you get you're ideas about Christianity but you would do well to consider what the New Testament says without distorting the meaning by rationalizing it away. The same power that created all the life is available to belivers by faith. You want to characterize this as superstition when it is historically reliable.