Evolutionary debate

[lucaspa]

All that and you still didn't explain how those people he mentioned were being materialistic.

Not only that, but he completely ignored the spiritual reasons I posted.

 

[lucaspa]

I dont know where you are going with this..."opinions (no matter how expert sounding) are opinions were experimentation cannot achieve the very same results again and again.."

It's an old creationist argument to get "historical" sciences out of science. This way they can dismiss evidence from astronomy, cosmology, geology, and the fossil record because science, supposedly, can only deal with experimentation in the here and now, not one-time historical events.

You fall into the same error when you say "never be repeated under controlled conditions, ... and are of no value" Can Big Bang ever be repeated under "controlled conditions"? Of course not. Can the evolution of hominids be repeated? NO! Can the KT extinction event? Yet all are part of science. Why? Because they leave evidence we can study today. We can never repeat the meteor impact at the end of the Cretaceous that wiped out the dinosaurs. Or rather, no one is going to want to repeat crashing that size meteor into the planet just to see the extinctions it causes. But we can still study the event because it left evidence anyone can look at today, like the high levels of iridium in the sediment at the KT boundary or the quartz class spheres on the bottom of the Atlantic east of the Chixulub Crator. Or the Chixulub Crator itself.

Big Bang left us the cosmic microwave background radiation, the ration of hydrogen:helium, the SZ effect, etc. All consequences that persist to today.

Similarly, a global flood would have had consequences, but instead we find consequences contrary to such a flood. So we know the flood never happened.

Science is based on observations and testing of those observations.

(putting on my "scientist" hat) Science is based on ideas (hypotheses/theories) and testing those ideas against observations in the physical universe. If you only say "observations" then you are leaving out the most important part of science: theory formation and testing.

"The only rule of the scientific method is that we must discard any scientific statement if the evidence of our senses shows it to be wrong. To be scientific, we must be able to go to nature to see if an idea works, to see if it fits. If we cannot go out and test the validity of a notion directly, we can take a more circuitous route: if an explanation about the world is correct, it must imply some further consequences that we can observe in nature. If we fail to find these predicted consequences, if instead we observe something else, then our explanation can't be correct. If we *do* make the predicted observations, temporarily the explanation has defied our attempts to show it false."
Niles Eldredge, The Monkey Business, A Scientist Looks at Creationism, 1982, pg. 27-28.

Obviously experimental results that cannot be duplicated are of no value in science; one of the reasons we reject claims of the miraculous.

Time to wear my science hat. Sorry, but most times science does not reject claims of the miraculous. Science can't test them because that event left no evidence that survived to today. I'm afraid you are distorting science as badly and littlenipper.

Some "miraculous" events would leave evidence that would persist to today. Miraculous creation of species in their present form, for instance. Miraculous creation of the universe, including earth, less than 10,000 years ago.

Some miracles leave no evidence that would be around today. Parting of the Red Sea, Jesus' healing of the sick, the miracle of the loaves and fishes, walking on water, the resurrection. Those miracles science cannot comment on. We neither affirm nor deny them; we can't comment.

Such claims can never be repeated under controlled conditions, nor shown to ever have happened in the first place, and are of no value except, that is, if one values opinions for its own sake.

The value is that they may be true and, if true, would overthrow or modify current theories. And they are not opinion. They are evidence. They are data. It's just that they are data that lie outside the limited domain of science.

Finally, if a 'biblical model" based on someone's fallible interpretation of the bible is found to be at variance with what can be empirically demonstrated, then it is not appropriate for the public schools to endorse one particular take on the bible and say that is correct, and the data is wrong.

Read the first quote in my signature. What you are missing is that creationism is a scientific theory. Young earth creationism and Flood Geology were the accepted scientific theory until 1800-1831. It has been shown to be wrong. So we can't teach it as true anymore than we can teach the theory that the earth is flat or phrenology or that the sun and planets orbit the earth as true.

 

[Zac de los Santos]

It is a simple matter to confirm that we have already found and keep on finding hundreds of unambiguously transitional species in the fossil record, even according to the strictest definition of that word.... and that species to species macro-evolution has been directly observed and documented dozens of time both in the lab and in naturally controlled conditions in the field. There is real world market value in understanding these processes.

 

[SkyWriting]

YA literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3 contradicts what God left for us in His Creation. As I already mentioned, a literal reading of Genesis 1 contradicts a literal reading of Genesis 2. That tells you that neither is an explanation of how God created.

You can't be too bright to assume they are both literal. Therefore, your conclusion also in error. And it just never stops once you get on that road.

 

[SkyWriting]

It is a simple matter to confirm that we have already found and keep on finding hundreds of unambiguously transitional species in the fossil record, even according to the strictest definition of that word.... and that species to species macro-evolution has been directly observed and documented dozens of time both in the lab and in naturally controlled conditions in the field. There is real world market value in understanding these processes.

But species to species is the lowest form of macro-evolution. These fish didn't breed with these fish in the past.....but now they do. Amazing.
Not all definitions of macro evolution allow the species level in the definition.

 

[corvus_corax]

You can't be too bright to assume they are both literal. Therefore, your conclusion also in error. And it just never stops once you get on that road.

So which one is literal, and which one is full of mythology?
And, btw, lucaspa never said that he assumed they were both literal

So which version of the creation account is 'factual'?
Which one is 'literal'?

 

[SkyWriting]

[/i]
It's an old creationist argument to get "historical" sciences out of science. This way they can dismiss evidence from astronomy, cosmology, geology, and the fossil record because science, supposedly, can only deal with experimentation in the here and now, not one-time historical events.

You fall into the same error when you say "never be repeated under controlled conditions, ... and are of no value" Can Big Bang ever be repeated under "controlled conditions"? Of course not. Can the evolution of hominids be repeated? NO! Can the KT extinction event? Yet all are part of science. Why? Because they leave evidence we can study today. We can never repeat the meteor impact at the end of the Cretaceous that wiped out the dinosaurs. Or rather, no one is going to want to repeat crashing that size meteor into the planet just to see the extinctions it causes. But we can still study the event because it left evidence anyone can look at today...

That is correct. One time historical events are not part of science. Paul Revere's ride, is not science. World War II is not science. Plymouth rock is not science. Yet all of these one time events left evidence for us to scientifically study. They all had a huge impact on the world we live in.

Yet these events are now all part of Luca-Science.

Why? Because they leave evidence we can study today.

We can never repeat the impact Paul Revere had on our country that wiped out the British. Or, no one is going to want to repeat docking that size boat into the coast just to see the extinctions it causes the natives. But we can still study the event because it left evidence anyone can look at today!

That makes it Science!!
(luca-science)

 

[SkyWriting]

Young earth creationism and Flood Geology were the accepted scientific theory until 1800-1831. It has been shown to be wrong. So we can't teach it as true anymore than we can teach the theory that the earth is flat or phrenology or that the sun and planets orbit the earth as true.

I appreciate your history lesson. I finally understand why people are so hostile to the flood story. I wasn't really aware of flood geology until just now. No wonder people think the story has been discredited!

I'm amazed. I never did see how flood geology worked.
The issue is, Flood Geology is not Biblical.
There is no reference to what happened to the earth.
Other than it got covered in water.

It wouldn't HAVE to leave much trace on geology.
It could, but its not required.

 

[lucaspa]

But species to species is the lowest form of macro-evolution.

But it's the only one that matters. The only biological reality is species. Any taxonomic group "above" species are simply groups of species. So once you have speciation, formation of genera, families, orders, classes, etc. are inevitable. See the diagram (the only one) in Origin of Species: http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F391&viewtype=text&pageseq=1 pg 90

These fish didn't breed with these fish in the past.....but now they do. Amazing.

What fish?

Not all definitions of macro evolution allow the species level in the definition.

Quote us some definitions of macroevolution from the evolutionary biology literature that do not.

"But we must ask, what exactly are these genera, families, orders, and so on? It was clear to Darwin, and it should be obvious to all today, that they are simply ever larger categories used to give names to ever larger clusters of related species. That's all these clusters, these higher taxa, really are: simply clusters of related species.

Thus, in priniciple the evolution of a family should be no different in its basic nature, and should involve no different processes, from the evolution of a genus, since a family is nothing more than a collection of related genera. And genera are just collections of related species. The triumph of evolutionary biology in the 1930s and 1940s was the conclusion that the same principles of adaptive divergence just described -- primarily the processes of mutation and natural selection -- going on within species, accumulate to produce the differences we see between closely related species -- i.e., within genera. Q.E.D.: If adaptive modification within species explains the evolutionary differences between species within a genus, logically it must explain all the evolutionary change we see between families, orders, classes, phyla, and the kingdoms of life. Niles Eldredge, The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism. pgs 76-77.

 

[lucaspa]

I appreciate your history lesson. I finally understand why people are so hostile to the flood story. I wasn't really aware of flood geology until just now. No wonder people think the story has been discredited!

I'm amazed. I never did see how flood geology worked.
The issue is, Flood Geology is not Biblical.
There is no reference to what happened to the earth.
Other than it got covered in water.

It wouldn't HAVE to leave much trace on geology.
It could, but its not required.

It is required that a global flood leave some trace on geology. But there are features around the world that cannot exist if there had been a global flood after they were formed. One example is the volcanic cones in Auvergne, France. They are old and very eroded, which makes them fragile. If there had been a global flood in historical times, those cones would have collapsed. They aren't, therefore no global flood.

Flood Geology is necessary to save the theory of a young earth. Sedimentary rock around the world -- and such features as Siccar Point, Scotland -- demonstrate that the earth is, at least, hundreds of millions of years old. So that falsifies young earth. Flood Geolog is a huge ad hoc hypothesis within creationism to try to save young earth. The hypothesis is that all those sedimentary layers were laid down during the Flood.

As you noted, the Biblical flood is very gentle. There is reference within Genesis as to what happened to the earth: nothing. Flood Geology requires a very violent flood.

 

[lucaspa]

You can't be too bright to assume they are both literal. Therefore, your conclusion also in error. And it just never stops once you get on that road.

What Corvus_Corax said. I am confused by this post. It looks like you are either supporting the idea that neither creation story is literal and, therefore, if you assume they are then you are on a road of error. OTOH, it looks like you are criticizing my criticism of a literal reading of Genesis 1-3. Please clarify.

 

[Hespera]

It is required that a global flood leave some trace on geology. But there are features around the world that cannot exist if there had been a global flood after they were formed. One example is the volcanic cones in Auvergne, France. They are old and very eroded, which makes them fragile. If there had been a global flood in historical times, those cones would have collapsed. They aren't, therefore no global flood.

Flood Geology is necessary to save the theory of a young earth. Sedimentary rock around the world -- and such features as Siccar Point, Scotland -- demonstrate that the earth is, at least, hundreds of millions of years old. So that falsifies young earth. Flood Geolog is a huge ad hoc hypothesis within creationism to try to save young earth. The hypothesis is that all those sedimentary layers were laid down during the Flood.

As you noted, the Biblical flood is very gentle. There is reference within Genesis as to what happened to the earth: nothing. ood Geology requires a very violent flood.

We are waiting to find out why these "flood" waters didnt float the polar ice away.

 

[lucaspa]

That is correct. One time historical events are not part of science.

That's not what I said. I said some one-time historical events are not part of science. Others are.

Paul Revere's ride, is not science. World War II is not science. Plymouth rock is not science. Yet all of these one time events left evidence for us to scientifically study. They all had a huge impact on the world we live in.

What physical evidence did Paul Revere's ride or the landing at Plymouth Rock leave until the present? WWII left lots of physical evidence around, and indeed historians use science to test historical hypotheses of what happened during parts of WWII. In another example, historians have used science to test the different human accounts of the Battle of the Little Big Horn (Custer's Last Stand). Turns out the oral accounts of the Indians are accurate.

What you are doing, Skywriting, is playing semantics. When I said "evidence", I meant "direct physical evidence". IThat is, something in the physical universe that was directly caused by the event: imprints of horses hooves, grooves in the sand where the ship's boat's keel came ashore, etc. You decided to change that to any and all "evidence", but especially changes in human society, politics, and subsequent historical events. And historians do look at that type of evidence as they test theories about what happened within human history. For example, since the area that used to be British colonies in North America no longer are British colonies, historians can infer that the American Revolution succeeded.

However, the one time historical event that was the impact of a meteor in Arizona left direct physical evidence that persist to today: Meteor Crator. We can study that crator and use it to test theories about its formation. We don't have to directly observe the impact or repeat the impact to know, from science, that a meteor landed in Arizona.

We can never repeat the impact Paul Revere had on our country that wiped out the British. Or, no one is going to want to repeat docking that size boat into the coast just to see the extinctions it causes the natives. But we can still study the event because it left evidence anyone can look at today!

Wow. You really have the history wrong. What's more, we can't repeat the establishment of the Massachusetts Bay Colony because that historical setting no longer exists. Sure, we can build a replica of the boat, load it with the same mix of people, land it at Plymouth Rock, but it is still not repeatable because the conditions at the time no longer exist. So there is no repeat.

There are branches of knowledge -- history, anthropology, and sociology -- that do study the effects today on human society of the Pilgrim's colony on the native Americans and wildlife in the region. But even in those branches of knowledge -- which are not science as we are using the term -- we can study one-time events by the consequences they left.

 

[lucaspa]

We are waiting to find out why these "flood" waters didnt float the polar ice away.

That's another fact that should not be there if a global flood happened. In even more detail, we have ice cores all over the world. A global flood, even if they did not melt all the ice, would have left tell-tale interruptions in the ice cores. Those interruptions are not there.

Since true statements cannot have false consequences, the statement that there was a global flood in historical times is false.

 

[Hespera]

[/i]

It's an old creationist argument to get "historical" sciences out of science. This way they can dismiss evidence from astronomy, cosmology, geology, and the fossil record because science, supposedly, can only deal with experimentation in the here and now, not one-time historical events.

You fall into the same error when you say "never be repeated under controlled conditions, ... and are of no value" Can Big Bang ever be repeated under "controlled conditions"? Of course not. Can the evolution of hominids be repeated? NO! Can the KT extinction event? Yet all are part of science. Why? Because they leave evidence we can study today. We can never repeat the meteor impact at the end of the Cretaceous that wiped out the dinosaurs. Or rather, no one is going to want to repeat crashing that size meteor into the planet just to see the extinctions it causes. But we can still study the event because it left evidence anyone can look at today, like the high levels of iridium in the sediment at the KT boundary or the quartz class spheres on the bottom of the Atlantic east of the Chixulub Crator. Or the Chixulub Crator itself.

Big Bang left us the cosmic microwave background radiation, the ration of hydrogen:helium, the SZ effect, etc. All consequences that persist to today.

Similarly, a global flood would have had consequences, but instead we find consequences contrary to such a flood. So we know the flood never happened.



(putting on my "scientist" hat) Science is based on ideas (hypotheses/theories) and testing those ideas against observations in the physical universe. If you only say "observations" then you are leaving out the most important part of science: theory formation and testing.

"The only rule of the scientific method is that we must discard any scientific statement if the evidence of our senses shows it to be wrong. To be scientific, we must be able to go to nature to see if an idea works, to see if it fits. If we cannot go out and test the validity of a notion directly, we can take a more circuitous route: if an explanation about the world is correct, it must imply some further consequences that we can observe in nature. If we fail to find these predicted consequences, if instead we observe something else, then our explanation can't be correct. If we *do* make the predicted observations, temporarily the explanation has defied our attempts to show it false."
Niles Eldredge, The Monkey Business, A Scientist Looks at Creationism, 1982, pg. 27-28.



Time to wear my science hat. Sorry, but most times science does not reject claims of the miraculous. Science can't test them because that event left no evidence that survived to today. I'm afraid you are distorting science as badly and littlenipper.

Some "miraculous" events would leave evidence that would persist to today. Miraculous creation of species in their present form, for instance. Miraculous creation of the universe, including earth, less than 10,000 years ago.

Some miracles leave no evidence that would be around today. Parting of the Red Sea, Jesus' healing of the sick, the miracle of the loaves and fishes, walking on water, the resurrection. Those miracles science cannot comment on. We neither affirm nor deny them; we can't comment.



The value is that they may be true and, if true, would overthrow or modify current theories. And they are not opinion. They are evidence. They are data. It's just that they are data that lie outside the limited domain of science.



Read the first quote in my signature. What you are missing is that creationism is a scientific theory. Young earth creationism and Flood Geology were the accepted scientific theory until 1800-1831. It has been shown to be wrong. So we can't teach it as true anymore than we can teach the theory that the earth is flat or phrenology or that the sun and planets orbit the earth as true.

I do know the function of that old creoargument about "historical science".

And i am not falling into an error. i said, "experimental results that cannot be duplicated are of no value in science; one of the reasons we reject claims of the miraculous. Such claims can never be repeated under controlled conditions, nor shown to ever have happened"

and that is quite true. Science does reject claims of the miraculous, or anything else that is against all known science and has no evidence to indicate it happened. Open to it being demonstrated, sure, but in the meantime it is rejected, non issue like Atlantis and bigfoot.

"Some "miraculous" events would leave evidence that would persist to today. Miraculous creation of species in their present form, for instance.

True, if it had happened.

I sure dont agree that i am distorting anything about science. You may ahve an impression that I dont know what i am talking about, and a less than totally detailed statement could lead to that impression.


I guess I could decide you dont know what you are talking about and are distorting science, with this statement...."accepted scientific theory until 1800-1831. It has been shown to be wrong. So we can't teach it as true"

Where i come from we dont teach any theory as being 'true".

But i will take it as a misstatement on your part, much as you could take it that when i said science is based on observation and experiment, i didnt mean that was the entire thing.

I will admit to being just a grad student and you have more experience in science than I do.

 

[pgp_protector]

I appreciate your history lesson. I finally understand why people are so hostile to the flood story. I wasn't really aware of flood geology until just now. No wonder people think the story has been discredited!

I'm amazed. I never did see how flood geology worked.
The issue is, Flood Geology is not Biblical.
There is no reference to what happened to the earth.
Other than it got covered in water.

It wouldn't HAVE to leave much trace on geology.
It could, but its not required.

It wouldn't leave much trace on geology only if God was trying to deceive us.
Otherwise it would leave Massive traces.

 

[SkyWriting]

It wouldn't leave much trace on geology only if God was trying to deceive us.
Otherwise it would leave Massive traces.

Both suggestions, baseless.

 

[SkyWriting]

That's another fact that should not be there if a global flood happened. In even more detail, we have ice cores all over the world. A global flood, even if they did not melt all the ice, would have left tell-tale interruptions in the ice cores. Those interruptions are not there.

Since true statements cannot have false consequences, the statement that there was a global flood in historical times is false.

How do we document these interruptions, these missing ice layers.
What properties do ice cores have that allow is to spot missing
layers from a series of layers?

 

[SkyWriting]

What Corvus_Corax said. I am confused by this post. It looks like you are either supporting the idea that neither creation story is literal and, therefore, if you assume they are then you are on a road of error. OTOH, it looks like you are criticizing my criticism of a literal reading of Genesis 1-3. Please clarify.

If you were experienced with critical analysis of ancient literature, you'd have much less difficulty resolving literary "Conflicts". But at this point, you seem stuck.

 

[SkyWriting]

That's another fact that should not be there if a global flood happened. In even more detail, we have ice cores all over the world. A global flood, even if they did not melt all the ice, would have left tell-tale interruptions in the ice cores. Those interruptions are not there.

Since true statements cannot have false consequences, the statement that there was a global flood in historical times is false.

The sequencing of layers come from comparison with other non-involved ice layers in other parts of the world.