Discussion on the topic of evolution - Who believes what?

[Obliquinaut]

I do know what it means, without prior, empirical evidence would be apostori. A dead give away is the way you say all the evidence yet present none. That means prior to the evidence common ancestry is uniformly assumed bad creation categorically rejected.

SURELY someone has shown you this: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

If not, you're welcome!

By the way if evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life that means creation can never contradict TOE and vise versa

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. Creationism, however, often DOES have a problem with evolution because all life according to Creationism is specially created individually. According to evolution, however, one form of life develops from others. Whales, for example, were not created as we see them at the beginning of time, they developed from earlier life forms.

The part that Creationism is free and clear on is the absolute beginning of self-replicating "life".

Meaning that, basically, if the Bible said "And God created a self-replicating cell" it would be fine and dandy.

This is also why it is possible for someone to believe in God AND evolution. Many Christians see no problem with a God who "kicked things off" by laying out the laws of physics and chemistry and letting the system run with the knowledge that life would arise according to His plan. Just not as described in literal readings of Genesis.

 

[Distances Travelled]

prayerfully your dad will see the Light before it's too late!

My dad died a few years ago, as happy an atheist as there ever was. I think, right or wrong, he'd be happy to have stuck to his opinions. I know religion probably doesn't see it this way, but he was a good man, religion or no, and I'm proud to be his little girl. I appreciate the sentiment though, and these conversations are giving me a lot to think about with respect to my mom's beliefs.

 

[mark kennedy]

SURELY someone has shown you this: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

If not, you're welcome!

The only line of argument in that that interested me was the genetics stuff and TO was in such gross error I lost interest early. My central issue has always been human evolution in general and the human brain especially. The lines of evidence I'm interested in are fossils and comparative genomics. Talk Origin like AIG make a nice start but should be confuse with primary source material. About the only thing I'll put any weight on is the scientific literature.

Now as far a God just creating the physical universe and just letting it run its course, that's called deism.

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. Creationism, however, often DOES have a problem with evolution because all life according to Creationism is specially created individually. According to evolution, however, one form of life develops from others. Whales, for example, were not created as we see them at the beginning of time, they developed from earlier life forms.

The part that Creationism is free and clear on is the absolute beginning of self-replicating "life".

Meaning that, basically, if the Bible said "And God created a self-replicating cell" it would be fine and dandy.

This is also why it is possible for someone to believe in God AND evolution. Many Christians see no problem with a God who "kicked things off" by laying out the laws of physics and chemistry and letting the system run with the knowledge that life would arise according to His plan. Just not as described in literal readings of Genesis.

 

[Motherofkittens]

We believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
begotten from the Father before all ages,
God from God,
Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made;
of the same essence as the Father.
Through him all things were made. (Nicene Creed)
​

Notice God as Creator tops the list, then the incarnation, then another confession of God as Creator. It is definitely essential doctrine and why would I believe the promise of eternal life if I didn't believe God created life in the first place?

Did you miss the part where I said believing Yahweh is creator and believing in a literal genesis are not the same? You responded to my "besides" post and where I said that discussion was not for here or with me.

Anyway, reality trumps belief to most people.

 

[Speedwell]

Now as far a God just creating the physical universe and just letting it run its course, that's called deism.

If that's all you believed about God, his creative activity and his interaction with man, then yes. Otherwise not.

 

[AV1611VET]

So now explain to me why, if you guys have so much trouble with a simple definition you are able to find so many flaws in science that has developed over 200 years and the work of countless thousands of independent scientists?

I just sit back and let reality pwn scientists over and over and over and over and over.

Cases in point:

1. Thalidomide

• Scientists: It is a prenatal wonder drug.
• Reality: Yes, but it is a postnatal horror drug.

2. Titanic

• Scientists: Unsinkable.
• Reality: Sunk.

3. Deepwater Horizon

• Scientists: Let's party!
• Reality: BOOM!

4. Pluto

• Scientists: 9th planet found!
• Reality: Wait! It's only a dwarf!

5. L'Aquila

• Scientists: Go home.
• Reality: Go away.

6. Hindenburg

• Scientists: Filler up with H!
• Reality: BOOM!

7. 9/11

• Scientists: Don't anybody leave!
• Reality: Don't worry. No one's going anywhere.

 

[Speedwell]

I just sit back and let reality pwn scientists over and over and over and over and over.

Cases in point:

1. Thalidomide

• Scientists: It is a prenatal wonder drug.
• Reality: Yes, but it is a postnatal horror drug.

2. Titanic

• Scientists: Unsinkable.
• Reality: Sunk.

3. Deepwater Horizon

• Scientists: Let's party!
• Reality: BOOM!

4. Pluto

• Scientists: 9th planet found!
• Reality: Wait! It's only a dwarf!

5. L'Aquila

• Scientists: Go home.
• Reality: Go away.

6. Hindenburg

• Scientists: Filler up with H!
• Reality: BOOM!

7. 9/11

• Scientists: Don't anybody leave!
• Reality: Don't worry. No one's going anywhere.

Evidently, a definition you have quite a bit of trouble with is the definition of "scientist."

 

[Obliquinaut]

I just sit back and let reality pwn scientists over and over and over and over and over.

Hmmm, so you are quick to point out the errors scientists have made...in reality it wasn't always the error of the scientists, but that doesn't stop you.

May I disprove your faith by presenting the number of times people of faith have made false predictions of the end of the world? How about the ones who violated most of God's laws in order to fleece God's worshippers? How about the ones who committed murder in the name of God?

Nah, you see, you would have a million excuses at the ready. But you don't mind doing that to science.

Huh. It's almost as if you you've never read Luke 6:31. I wonder why that is.

Is it an uncomfortable verse for you or does your sect simply leave it out of the Bible?

3. Deepwater Horizon

• Scientists: Let's party!
• Reality: BOOM!

I like this one because it appears to have been the BUSINESS that demanded the system run in an unsafe condition. Not the scientists.

4. Pluto

• Scientists: 9th planet found!
• Reality: Wait! It's only a dwarf!

I love how many times this has been explained to you but you still go for it. I wonder if you are incapable of understanding the point or if you are simply unwilling to let go of something that sounds like it's meaningful to you but isn't.

7. 9/11

• Scientists: Don't anybody leave!
• Reality: Don't worry. No one's going anywhere.

Well this is a new one. Tell us how many people in the upper floors were rescued by prayer? And then tell us how many of the hijackers who caused that disaster did so out of intense religious feelings. Religious feelings I might add they held as strongly as you hold yours, possibly even moreso.

Yeah, science is bad. Got it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Tell us how many people in the upper floors were rescued by prayer?

42

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hmmm, so you are quick to point out the errors scientists have made...in reality it wasn't always the error of the scientists, but that doesn't stop you.

May I disprove your faith by presenting the number of times people of faith have made false predictions of the end of the world? How about the ones who violated most of God's laws in order to fleece God's worshippers? How about the ones who committed murder in the name of God?

Nah, you see, you would have a million excuses at the ready. But you don't mind doing that to science.

Huh. It's almost as if you you've never read Luke 6:31. I wonder why that is.

Is it an uncomfortable verse for you or does your sect simply leave it out of the Bible?



I like this one because it appears to have been the BUSINESS that demanded the system run in an unsafe condition. Not the scientists.



I love how many times this has been explained to you but you still go for it. I wonder if you are incapable of understanding the point or if you are simply unwilling to let go of something that sounds like it's meaningful to you but isn't.



Well this is a new one. Tell us how many people in the upper floors were rescued by prayer? And then tell us how many of the hijackers who caused that disaster did so out of intense religious feelings. Religious feelings I might add they held as strongly as you hold yours, possibly even moreso.

Yeah, science is bad. Got it.

If AV applied his standards to Christianity he would be the biggest anti-theist ever. Sadly he reverts to a special pleading fallacy to preserve his faith.

 

[Everybodyknows]

I do know what it means, without prior, empirical evidence would be apostori.

Ok good, you understand.

A dead give away is the way you say all the evidence yet present none. That means prior to the evidence common ancestry is uniformly assumed bad creation categorically rejected.

Except now you show that you don't understand. You would need to demonstrate that common ancestry was established without any evidence at all. If you read Origin of Species you will find that Darwin comes to conclusions on the basis of examining much evidence all over the world. Therefore it cannot be a priori by definition. It doesn't mean that he is correct in his interpretation of the evidence though. You seem to think that anything that isn't supported by 100% undeniable evidence is a priori.

By the way if evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life that means creation can never contradict TOE and vise versa

There are plenty of ways creationism could contradict TOE (or NTOE, that's Not Theory of Evolution if you prefer). Proving common descent is impossible would be one. Proving that there is some genetic mechanisms that keeps organisms within their 'kinds'would be another. There are probably plenty more. Creationism, on the other hand, is not contradictable because it's unfalsifiable, therefore it cannot be approached scientifically.

 

[mark kennedy]

Ok good, you understand.

Oh brother.

Except now you show that you don't understand. You would need to demonstrate that common ancestry was established without any evidence at all. If you read Origin of Species you will find that Darwin comes to conclusions on the basis of examining much evidence all over the world. Therefore it cannot be a priori by definition. It doesn't mean that he is correct in his interpretation of the evidence though. You seem to think that anything that isn't supported by 100% undeniable evidence is a priori.

He's using anecdotal evidence to support an a priori assumption he states in the preface:

The doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species…all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (Darwin on the Origin of Species)
​

The Mendelian Laws of Inheritance that represent what the legitimate life sciences have demonstrated that there are limits beyond which species cannot evolve, see my signature. Or don't you understand the Mendelian laws of inheritance?

There are plenty of ways creationism could contradict TOE (or NTOE, that's Not Theory of Evolution if you prefer).

I prefer you call it what it is, Darwinism, evolution has very little to do with any of this which is why Darwinians don't have a clue how it works.

Proving common descent is impossible would be one. Proving that there is some genetic mechanisms that keeps organisms within their 'kinds'would be another. There are probably plenty more. Creationism, on the other hand, is not contradictable because it's unfalsifiable, therefore it cannot be approached scientifically.

You don't prove a negative and the doctrine of creation does not have an empirical burden of proof, Darwinism does. I can demonstrate conclusively the divergence between chimpanzee and human genomes, even protein coding genes and especially brain related genes would have had to appear out of nowhere, with no molecular mechanism, in no time at all. The best part, I don't need your permission or approval.

 

[Speedwell]

Oh brother.



He's using anecdotal evidence to support an a priori assumption he states in the preface:

The doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species…all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (Darwin on the Origin of Species)
​

The Mendelian Laws of Inheritance that represent what the legitimate life sciences have demonstrated that there are limits beyond which species cannot evolve, see my signature. Or don't you understand the Mendelian laws of inheritance?




I prefer you call it what it is, Darwinism, evolution has very little to do with any of this which is why Darwinians don't have a clue how it works.



You don't prove a negative and the doctrine of creation does not have an empirical burden of proof, Darwinism does. I can demonstrate conclusively the divergence between chimpanzee and human genomes, even protein coding genes and especially brain related genes would have had to appear out of nowhere, with no molecular mechanism, in no time at all. The best part, I don't need your permission or approval.

Perhaps you could remind us exactly what you mean by the "Doctrine of Creation." Clearly you mean something more than the affirmation of creation set forth in the Nicene Creed. On the other hand, I have gotten the impression that you are not a YEC. Please clarify.

 

[Everybodyknows]

He's using anecdotal evidence to support an a priori assumption he states in the preface:

The doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species…all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (Darwin on the Origin of Species)
​

The Mendelian Laws of Inheritance that represent what the legitimate life sciences have demonstrated that there are limits beyond which species cannot evolve, see my signature. Or don't you understand the Mendelian laws of inheritance?

Anecdotal evidence still excludes it from being a priori. My problem is with your incorrect use of the term a priori. If Darwin considered any evidence at all then we can't call it an a priori assumption (which would mean he arrived at it purely from the mind). Now I don't need to delve into the depths of evolutionary theory and prove if right or wrong to say this.

You don't prove a negative and the doctrine of creation does not have an empirical burden of proof, Darwinism does. I can demonstrate conclusively the divergence between chimpanzee and human genomes, even protein coding genes and especially brain related genes would have had to appear out of nowhere, with no molecular mechanism, in no time at all. The best part, I don't need your permission or approval.

Good you've convinced yourself, now convince some ungodly Darwinists.

 

[USincognito]

Anecdotal evidence still excludes it from being a priori. My problem is with your incorrect use of the term a priori. If Darwin considered any evidence at all then we can't call it an a priori assumption (which would mean he arrived at it purely from the mind). Now I don't need to delve into the depths of evolutionary theory and prove if right or wrong to say this.


Good you've convinced yourself, now convince some ungodly Darwinists.

Just a heads up, he's been repeating the same mantra like shtick for years. At this point you're wasting time trying to correct him.

 

[mark kennedy]

Anecdotal evidence still excludes it from being a priori.

No it confirms it.

My problem is with your incorrect use of the term a priori. If Darwin considered any evidence at all then we can't call it an a priori assumption (which would mean he arrived at it purely from the mind). Now I don't need to delve into the depths of evolutionary theory and prove if right or wrong to say this.

Before the evidence the assumption is life did not occur by miracle. Darwin is clear on this point as well as Darwinians.

Good you've convinced yourself, now convince some ungodly Darwinists.

I'm not concerned with convincing Darwinians, I follow the evidence and the substance of the arguments. It's fascinating to find the same arguments, whether informed or otherwise, break down the same way.

 

[Speedwell]

No it confirms it.

Why? Because he wrote about it in the "preface" of his book? Do you really suppose that means he thought up common ancestry before doing the research and formulating his theory?

 

[Everybodyknows]

No it confirms it.

No it doesn't.

Before the evidence the assumption is life did not occur by miracle. Darwin is clear on this point as well as Darwinians.

He never says how life occurs anyway, only the mechanism for change once life already exists

I'm not concerned with convincing Darwinians, I follow the evidence and the substance of the arguments. It's fascinating to find the same arguments, whether informed or otherwise, break down the same way.

Well surely you are right then!

 

[mark kennedy]

No it doesn't.

Does to, does to.

He never says how life occurs anyway, only the mechanism for change once life already exists

It's an infinite regress, there is no escaping that in Darwinism.

Well surely you are right then!

Maybe not right, but obviously irrefutable.

 

[Everybodyknows]

Does to, does to.

Does not

It's an infinite regress, there is no escaping that in Darwinism.

No there isn't

Maybe not right, but obviously irrefutable.

No you're not.