Evolution is an ancient Creation dogma

[Jimmy D]

Why do modern scientific institutions still pretend the evidence isn't leading away from a natural cause?

What evidence? Seriously.

Please present it or stop moaning.

 

[Heissonear]

lol, I love it when evolutionists pretend to be eager for a challenge when an opposing viewpoint isn't even allowed to be discussed.

Any time the question arises "Hey maybe blind natural processes couldn't have accounted for this...?" it's an immediate, all-hands-on-deck, hand-waving freak-out by your camp about those 'anti-science creationists' trying to sneak God's foot in the door.

Your camp is terrified of an open discourse about the potential limits of nature. It's simply ruled out as a possibility from the beginning, and that's that. The grand Nature-Creator orginated everything and now we just have to find out how. That is your creation story dogma.

Very appropriate and accurate reply.

 

[Heissonear]

What evidence? Seriously.

Please present it or stop moaning.

At this point, Jimmy, you should be able to understand what is being presented to you.

It seems you only see bias-confirmation viewpoints.

 

[Jimmy D]

At this point, Jimmy, you should be able to understand what is being presented to you.

It seems you only see bias-confirmation viewpoints.

More hot air.

What evidence leads away from a natural cause?

 

[Heissonear]

More hot air.

What evidence leads away from a natural cause?

Why do you not understand?

It seem you fail to see the OP topic reality. How vibrant, existing in living color.

 

[Jimmy D]

Why do you not understand?

It seem you fail to see the OP topic reality. How vibrant, existing in living color.

I re-read the OP.

As I remembered, it is a poorly conceived opinion piece, complaining about “dogmas” in science.

Which part did you consider to be evidence that “leads away from a natural cause”?

 

[Heissonear]

I re-read the OP.

As I remembered, it is a poorly conceived opinion piece, complaining about “dogmas” in science.

Which part did you consider to be evidence that “leads away from a natural cause”?

As a higher education student of geosciences, when I attained enough historical, paleontology, ......... publications, textbooks and instructor information, with an open mind while learning, it became apparent that many items presented as scientific facts was mere conjecture-based.

So when you state "by-natural-cause" it would have been best for many to be open minded as they learn so-called geosciences facts, and to be critical minded if what they are exposed to are true or scientifically-enveloped conjecture (i.e. valuable information missing) to make and receive the multitude of geoscience statements many were presenting as factual.

Many on CF appear already sold on the goods and merely present their side as debators. As open learners they show they are not - they no longer a need to change.

But many on CF still lack critical information about Earth Science to recognize conjecture verses true scientific facts.

In recent threads I have brought to others to view that the fossil record does not support evolution, when the details are examined, what the fossil record presents.

 

[Jimmy D]

As a higher education student of geosciences, when I attained enough historical, paleontology, ......... publications, textbooks and instructor information, with an open mind while learning, it became apparent that many items presented as scientific facts was mere conjecture-based.

So when you state "by-natural-cause" it would have been best for many to be open minded as they learn so-called geosciences facts, and to be critical minded if what they are exposed to are true or scientifically-enveloped conjecture (i.e. valuable information missing) to make and receive the multitude of geoscience statements many were presenting as factual.

Many on CF appear already sold on the goods and merely present their side as debators. As open learners they show they are not - they no longer a need to change.

But many on CF still lack critical information about Earth Science to recognize conjecture verses true scientific facts.

In recent threads I have brought to others to view that the fossil record does not support evolution, when the details are examined, what the fossil record presents.

Right, so that’s a no on the evidence I asked for then? You could have just said so.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Ah, right on cue with that supernatural strawman.

How is it a strawman?
How do you propose to test for god-included hypothesis to explain certain phenomena in the universe?

You know perfectly well that we can explore potential *limits* of nature's creative powers without having to invoke any supernatural agents.

Can we?
I submit that we can not, because it would necessarily involve arguments from ignorance. We can only say that we don't know how a certain thing occurs / happens or occured / happened.

And even if we go ahead and assume that we can, and pretend for a second that we actually have.... that still doesn't get us any step closer to concluding intervention by the supernatural entities and forces that you happen to be proposing (because you already believe in them).

See, you still require some form of being able to confirm your hypothesis.
You still require positive evidence in support of your particular claims.

Let's imagine that you can demonstrate, somehow, that humans most definatly aren't the result of biological evolution. That doesn't mean, in any way shape or form, that they were created by the god you happen to believe in - or indeed any god at all.

Any claim on the origins of humans, requires it's own confirming, testable evidence.
Without that - at best you can say that you don't know.

Yet the mere suggestion that nature may be unable to account for the origin of something (e.g. life) is forbidden within "scientific" institutions because of the reigning nature-creator dogma.

I already addressed this statement in the very post you are replying to.
This is a dishonest formulation.

 

[DogmaHunter]

lol, I love it when evolutionists pretend to be eager for a challenge when an opposing viewpoint isn't even allowed to be discussed.

I already explained to you that no viewpoint "isn't allowed" or "forbidden".
Rather, when you wish to present a viewpoint, you are required to also provide evidence for it in testable fashion. If you can't, then you can believe your viewpoint all you want - just don't expect any scientists to take it seriously in a scientific way.

Once more: that you present an unnatural viewpoint is not the issue. The issue is that your viewpoint is completely void of any testability whatseover - and by extension, evidence.

Any time the question arises "Hey maybe blind natural processes couldn't have accounted for this...?"

You can raise that question all you want. Can you also answer it? In testable ways?
Because while the question is cool and all, it's the answer that actually matters. And the way you concluded the answer.

it's an immediate, all-hands-on-deck, hand-waving freak-out by your camp about those 'anti-science creationists' trying to sneak God's foot in the door.

If people make untestable propositions that only serve to sneak in religious beliefs, why wouldn't scientists object?

Regardless if that is what you believe that you are doing, I hope you can at least agree that the principle of sneaking in unscientific thought in a scientific context, is something scientists would need to object to, correct?

Your camp is terrified of an open discourse about the potential limits of nature.

Being "terrified" has got nothing to do with it.
Open discourse is actually encouraged.

However, your discourse should be build on a solid foundation of testability and evidence. And what you are proposing so far is only build on a very weak foundation of faith based religious beliefs.

That's why your discourse is ignored in science. Not because it happens to include a god or because it puts limits on natural processes.

It sounds like you are complaining that you aren't allowed to completely bypass the scientific scrutiny and rules of the scientific method, to promote your religious beliefs.

It's simply ruled out as a possibility from the beginning, and that's that.

Nothing is ruled out at priori in science.
It's just that untestable and unevidenced models aren't scientific.

The grand Nature-Creator orginated everything and now we just have to find out how. That is your creation story dogma.

No, it's not.

I start from "i don't know" and go from there, by following the evidence.
And all the evdience we have so far, happens to support a materialistic, naturalistic model of reality. That is true. Does that mean that we should dogmatically adopt a materialistic, naturalistic belief system? Heck no!!

It just means that those models happen to be supported by the evidence we have so far.

Come up with comparable evidence to include your religious beliefs, and I'll happily include them in my worldview. So would science.

But you can't, can you?

 

[lifepsyop]

What evidence? Seriously.

Please present it or stop moaning.

Will you sit there with a straight face and pretend the evidence points to natural abiogenesis as the origin of life? Go ahead, let's hear it. Does the evidence suggest that was likely or perhaps very very very unlikely?

There's a good reason evolutionists are always so desperate to defend their religion only *after* life has appeared. That's a VERY important distinction for you. With the subject of abiogenesis there is much less material for you to confuse and equivocate and 'shell-game' your audience with. (as is the case in ToE) ... You're simply left with a brutal straightforward refutation of your nature-god. And the only way you can sustain her is by imposing your dogma and assuming the natural-cause is beyond question.

 

[lifepsyop]

Can we?
I submit that we can not, because it would necessarily involve arguments from ignorance. We can only say that we don't know how a certain thing occurs / happens or occured / happened.

But that's not what you do. Imposing your creation beliefs onto the research, you assert from the beginning that nature, and only nature, can be considered as the cause. That nature might be limited here is simply not up for debate.

And even if we go ahead and assume that we can, and pretend for a second that we actually have.... that still doesn't get us any step closer to concluding intervention by the supernatural entities and forces that you happen to be proposing (because you already believe in them).

The world screams out that it was created. It takes a long process of indoctrination, selling disguised philosophy and at-best ambiguities as "fact" to convince people otherwise.

 

[lifepsyop]

Right, so that’s a no on the evidence I asked for then? You could have just said so.

What is evidence going to do for you? You seem incapable of the slightest bit of self-examination when it comes to your own philosophical beliefs which govern how evidence will be interpreted in the first place.


For example, I could show you this devestating critique of the theory "Whale Evolution", specifically the amount of radical anatomical change that would have to "evolve" in small, slowly-reproducing animal populations, crammed into a tiny space of geologic time.

Going from a fully terrestrial wolf-like creature to a fully aquatic whale via neo-Darwinian mechanisms in under 10 million years would simply be miraculous.

However, because of your prior philosophical committment to Evolution, you can't even hear the argument or see the evidence. To you, this is all "God-of-the-Gaps" fallacies, or whatever other automatic defense mechanisms you've been trained to respond with when someone questions your beliefs about the mystical powers of time and happy accidents.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Will you sit there with a straight face and pretend the evidence points to natural abiogenesis as the origin of life?

Since you clearly don't have any evidence for your view, you are the pretender. Bye.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Will you sit there with a straight face and pretend the evidence points to natural abiogenesis as the origin of life? Go ahead, let's hear it.

Seeing as we ONLY have evidence of natural processes for anything and seeing as how life isn't made from some rare unnatural isotopes, but rather of the most prevalent elements found in the universe AND considering that at bottom, life processes can be broken down to "just" bio-chemistry, I'ld definatly say: YES, all the evidence we currently have at our disposal, favours naturalistic models to explain the origins of life.

This is why scientists pursuing this question, focus on natural processes in their search.

Do you have any valid reasons why they should be looking at unnatural processes instead?

Does the evidence suggest that was likely or perhaps very very very unlikely?

We only have evidence of natural processes. Which means that we have no other option but to pursue natural processes.

If you have non-natural processes in mind that are good candidates for explanatory models, then present them. Don't forget to also mention the evidence.

There's a good reason evolutionists are always so desperate to defend their religion only *after* life has appeared.

1. scientific models aren't relgions
2. that's because evolution explains the origins of biological diversity, of species. It does not address the origins of life itself. Why is this so hard to understand?

That's a VERY important distinction for you

It's an important distinction in the relevant sciences.
The processes that an existing thing is subject to, is not the same as the process that originated the thing being studied.

Life exists and we can study its development and behaviour. Regardless of how it came to be.

With the subject of abiogenesis there is much less material for you to confuse and equivocate and 'shell-game' your audience with. (as is the case in ToE) ... You're simply left with a brutal straightforward refutation of your nature-god. And the only way you can sustain her is by imposing your dogma and assuming the natural-cause is beyond question.

This isn't making any sense whatsoever and also misrepresents science in every way possible.

 

[DogmaHunter]

But that's not what you do.

Actually, that is exactly what I do, when I don't know something. I just say that I don't know, whereas you seem to be more in the camp of saying "god did it", when you don't know.

Imposing your creation beliefs onto the research

.....says the creationist.....

:facepalm:

, you assert from the beginning that nature, and only nature, can be considered as the cause.

Not at all.

At best, I'll say that naturalistic processes are more likely, for the sheer fact that we natural processes demonstrably exist and that just about every such question concerning phenomena of reality that was ever properly tackled and answered, had a natural process as explanation. While most of them were attributed to one god or the other before that.

But such god attribution have never, not once, been confirmed - ever. The only thing that ever happened to such assertions, has been refutation.

So, purely by precedent and available evidence, I'll put my money on some natural process as being the answer. Do I claim to know that? No. We don't know, until we know.

You're the one claiming knowledge concerning the origins of life, not me.

That nature might be limited here is simply not up for debate.

Again false. Rather: untestable, unfalsifiable assertions aren't up for debate. They are only up for rejection - because as the infamous Hitch used to say: "What is asserted without evidence, can be dissmissed without evidence".

The world screams out that it was created.

No. YOU scream out that it was created. Or rather, you are repeating the claims of your religion.

It takes a long process of indoctrination, selling disguised philosophy and at-best ambiguities as "fact" to convince people otherwise.

If that is what you wish to call "education", that's your choice.

Meanwhile, the only "indoctrination" that I actually see evidence of, is religious indoctrination. This is why you can pretty accurately predict the beliefs of a theist on this issue, purely by their geographic location.

 

[DogmaHunter]

What is evidence going to do for you?

Validating your claims as being accurate.

For example, I could show you this devestating critique of the theory "Whale Evolution", specifically the amount of radical anatomical change that would have to "evolve" in small, slowly-reproducing animal populations, crammed into a tiny space of geologic time.

Whale evolution is a process that stretched out over at least 50 million years.
That in itself, already shows that whatever argument you come up with, is going to be a misrepresentation of the facts, when you call that "a tiny space of geologica time".

50 million years is more then enough time for lots of evolution to take place.

Going from a fully terrestrial wolf-like creature to a fully aquatic whale via neo-Darwinian mechanisms in under 10 million years would simply be miraculous.

See? It's already happening.
Not 10 million years. Instead, at least 5 times as much. Probably even more.

However, because of your prior philosophical committment to Evolution, you can't even hear the argument or see the evidence.

Your argument / evidence, is false. As noted above.

To you, this is all "God-of-the-Gaps" fallacies

No, just sheer misrepresentation of the facts. Or extreme ignorance thereof.

, or whatever other automatic defense mechanisms you've been trained to respond with

Yep. I indeed have an "automatic" responsive trigger in my brain, when "arguments" are presented where the premised facts are just plain wrong.

when someone questions your beliefs about the mystical powers of time and happy accidents.

Misrepresenting the facts and arguing based on false data, is not a challenge to anything.

 

[Jimmy D]

Will you sit there with a straight face and pretend the evidence points to natural abiogenesis as the origin of life? Go ahead, let's hear it. Does the evidence suggest that was likely or perhaps very very very unlikely?

There's a good reason evolutionists are always so desperate to defend their religion only *after* life has appeared. That's a VERY important distinction for you. With the subject of abiogenesis there is much less material for you to confuse and equivocate and 'shell-game' your audience with. (as is the case in ToE) ... You're simply left with a brutal straightforward refutation of your nature-god. And the only way you can sustain her is by imposing your dogma and assuming the natural-cause is beyond question.

I thought that you claimed that there was evidence that lead away from a natural cause?

 

[Jimmy D]

What is evidence going to do for you? You seem incapable of the slightest bit of self-examination when it comes to your own philosophical beliefs which govern how evidence will be interpreted in the first place.


For example, I could show you this devestating critique of the theory "Whale Evolution", specifically the amount of radical anatomical change that would have to "evolve" in small, slowly-reproducing animal populations, crammed into a tiny space of geologic time.

Going from a fully terrestrial wolf-like creature to a fully aquatic whale via neo-Darwinian mechanisms in under 10 million years would simply be miraculous.

However, because of your prior philosophical committment to Evolution, you can't even hear the argument or see the evidence. To you, this is all "God-of-the-Gaps" fallacies, or whatever other automatic defense mechanisms you've been trained to respond with when someone questions your beliefs about the mystical powers of time and happy accidents.

Don’t presume to tell me what I’m capable of accepting or how I think. I was merely asking what evidence you claimed leads away from natural causes. If all you have is a discredited YouTube video expressing incredulity about whale evolution then you have no right to behave in such a judgemental and sanctimonious manner.

 

[lifepsyop]

Whale evolution is a process that stretched out over at least 50 million years.

That in itself, already shows that whatever argument you come up with, is going to be a misrepresentation of the facts, when you call that "a tiny space of

geologica time".

50 million years is more then enough time for lots of evolution to take place.

Evolutionists claim that a fully terrestrial animal like Pakicetus (50 mya) evolved into a fully aquatic animal like the Basilosaurids (40 mya), which is roughly 10 million years.

You either don't understand the subject matter or you're being purposefully obtuse to confuse readers. Which is it?

This is what evolutionists do when they get backed into a corner. Instead of taking on the central thrust of their opposition's arguments, they throw up a cloud of dust that muddies the issue.

Not 10 million years. Instead, at least 5 times as much. Probably even more.

It sounds like you're saying 10 million years is an insufficient amount of time for a fully terrestrial -> fully aquatic transformation to take place??? ... and that 50 million years is enough time... Why? Does 50 million just *feel* better to you? More space to assuage the imagination?

This is why Evolution is so funny. When it comes to large-scale body-plan changes, it's not based on anything resembling a hard science with rigid parameters describing maximum loads on anatomical change within X time, with regard to the powers of natural selection... This is when Evolution simply turns into imagineering and storytelling.


And by the way, there is evidence (recently discovered jawbone fossil) of fully aquatic Basilosaurids or similar species that may push back your mystical whale transformation to under 5 million years.



National Geographic 2011

Oldest Antarctic Whale Found; Shows Fast Evolution
Ancient jawbone suggests whales evolved more rapidly than thought.

A 24-inch-long (60-centimeter-long) jawbone was recently discovered amid a rich deposit of fossils on the Antarctic Peninsula (map).

The creature, which may have reached lengths of up to 20 feet (6 meters), had a mouthful of teeth and likely feasted on giant penguins, sharks, and big bony fish, whose remains were also discovered with the jawbone.

The early whale swam polar waters during the Eocene period, some 49 million years ago. Its age suggests fully aquatic whales evolved from their mammalian ancestors more rapidly than previously thought, said researcher Thomas Mörs, paleozoologist at the Swedish Museum of Natural History.

Based on 53-million-year-old fossils of whale-like, semi-aquatic mammals, scientists had thought mammals gave rise to whales in a process that took 15 million years. The new find suggests it took just 4 million years.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com...tica-whales-oldest-evolution-animals-science/



Oh let me guess... suddenly you don't even need the 10 million years that you scoffed at previously. Now the magical natural-selection fairies can do their work in under 5 million, right?

Don't even worry yourself thinking about this... Remember, you already know it's true because Evolution is a fact!