Evolution's Brick Wall

[pitabread]

You are aware of the fact that you are committed to a faith-based worldview, correct?

Only if you stretch the definition of "faith" to be relatively all-encompassing.

For example, I take it on faith that the I exist, the universe exists and that the universe is inherently objective.

 

[AACJ]

Only if you stretch the definition of "faith" to be relatively all-encompassing.

For example, I take it on faith that the I exist, the universe exists and that the universe is inherently objective.

Are you presenting a definition meaning that faith includes all acceptations? Havn't heard that one before. Are you moving the goal post, similar to 'New Atheists' trying to re-define Atheism?

I believe that a normalized, demonstrable, meaningful, and useful definition of faith is the acceptation of, or belief in, that which has not or cannot be proven using natural means and methods. Using that definition, you take by faith the two primary claims/beliefs that inform most all of your beliefs and practices. Those being:

1) Something can come from nothing. (Please do not waste our time here by trying to redefine nothingness.)

2) Time plus chance makes anything possible.

In addition, do you not know that even though you are an apparent materialist, you do in fact effectively make appeal to the supernatural with those two faith-based assumptions?

 

[Job 33:6]

They predicted the period for fish-to-tetrapod transition, went there and indeed found a strange creature that they can plug in that model (so far, so good)... then oops, someone finds tetrapod tracks eight million years before that predicted transition period. What’s wrong with that picture? And, excuse me, but who has their head in the sand here?

You do, for not understanding that these same tracks are in the mid devonian where evolution predicts them to be.

If the tracks appeared in the Cambrian, ordovician, silurian, Carboniferous , proterozoic, hadean, archean or anywhere in the mesozoic or cenozoic, you would have a case. But because the tracks are literally in bedding superpositionally just below tiktaalik, youre just further justifying the tetrapod transition in the mid devonian.

 

[pitabread]

Using that definition, you take by faith the two primary claims/beliefs that inform most all of your beliefs and practices. Those being:

1) Something can come from nothing. (Please do not waste our time here by trying to redefine nothingness.)

2) Time plus chance makes anything possible.

Regarding #1, I don't explicitly believe one way or the other since I don't have enough information to form a position on the subject.

I don't believe #2.

In addition, do you not know that even though you are an materialist, you do in fact effectively make appeal to the supernatural with those to faith-based assumptions?

I think you're doing a lot of projecting here. You might want to start by asking about what people believe and what their personal philosophies are before making a bunch of assumptions. You know what they say about assumptions...

 

[Speedwell]

Using that definition, you take by faith the two primary claims/beliefs that inform most all of your beliefs and practices. Those being:

1) Something can come from nothing. (Please do not waste our time here by trying to redefine nothingness.)

2) Time plus chance makes anything possible.

You're no great shakes as a mind-reader, I see. I hope you have a day job.

 

[Job 33:6]

And @inquiring mind you never explained how the prediction was made. Nor do you have examples of fossils in places that would contradict evolution.

And that is why it is you with your head in the sand.

 

[pitabread]

You're no great shakes as a mind-reader, I see. I hope you have a day job.

It's never a good sign when someone starts off with an immediate strawman...

 

[Job 33:6]

This isn't rocket science. If fish dominated the early devonian and the late devonian is dominated by tetrapods, then it should follow that if evolution is true in that amphibians evolved from fish, then the first evidence of tetrapodomorph life, should be in the mid devonian.

That's why tiktaalik which has fish and tetrapod traits, is in the mid devonian. That is also why the Polish tracks are in the mid devonian too, because this is the time that these animals first evolved and walked on land.

Whether the very first population evolved at 385 or 390 million years ago is irrelevant to the question of whether or not evolution predicts such things to exist where they have been found . Large transitions from fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal take some 100 million years. So to debate over if the first tetrapodomorph existed at 385 or 390 is meaningless.

If evolution were not true, we might find something like a reptile (or mammal or bird) in the mid devonian. The theory would collapse if such a thing existed because reptiles evolved from amphibians and therefore could not have existed before or along side the first terapods like tiktaalik.

Or if we found tetrapodomorph tracks anywhere in the hadean, archean, proterozoic, ediacaran, Cambrian, ordovician or silurian, or if we found the first tetrapodomorph tracks beyond the late devonian, this too would be an issue because it would show us that tetrapods evolved after reptiles which is the complete opposite of what the theory predicts. Or it would show us that tetrapodomorph evolved before fish or along side then, which also would contradict the theory.


But when you point out tetrapodomorph tracks in the mid devonian, all you're doing is confirming the theory. You have 4.56 billion years of rock, so to argue between the ideas that tetrapodomorphs evolved at 385 or 390 million years ago, is pointless because in the grand scheme of things, it's geologically at the same time. It's like arguing if the sky is baby blue or light blue. Doesn't matter it's the same thing


@inquiring mind and if you aren't familiar with the geologic timescale, then Google it

 

[AACJ]

Regarding #1, I don't explicitly believe one way or the other since I don't have enough information to form a position on the subject.

I don't believe #2.



I think you're doing a lot of projecting here. You might want to start by asking about what people believe and what their personal philosophies are before making a bunch of assumptions. You know what they say about assumptions...

Ahh yes, the ole appeal to ignorance. I believe many professing agnostics are nothing of the sort. Many claiming such a view are actually attempting to find a place of assumed neutrality. Assuming that such supposed neutrality will lend to themselves at least the appearance of an unbiased position. And who does not respect unbiased observation? But actually an appeal to ignorance (agnostic on the existence of God or creationism/evolutionism) does the Agnositc's position no real good.

Do you act and think like a materialist?

 

[AACJ]

Regarding #1, I don't explicitly believe one way or the other since I don't have enough information to form a position on the subject.

I don't believe #2.



I think you're doing a lot of projecting here. You might want to start by asking about what people believe and what their personal philosophies are before making a bunch of assumptions. You know what they say about assumptions...

You practice a faith-based worldview. As does everyone on this planet.

 

[pitabread]

You practice a faith-based worldview. As does everyone on this planet.

Sure. I told you what I have faith in. What's your point?

 

[inquiring mind]

And @inquiring mind you never explained how the prediction was made. Nor do you have examples of fossils in places that would contradict evolution.

And that is why it is you with your head in the sand.

It was your baby, ironclad you thought... and you 'took it to the bank'. Then someone in the scientific camp comes along with evidence that compromises your claim. You won't give up on it... you can't.

 

[AACJ]

Sure. I told you what I have faith in. What's your point?

Do you accept macro-evolutionism? You have written as though you do. My apologies if I have assumed wrongly.

 

[pitabread]

But actually an appeal to ignorance (agnostic on the existence of God or creationism/evolutionism does the Agnositc's position no real good.

Okay.

And?

 

[pitabread]

Do you accept macro-evolutionism? You have written as though you do. My apologies if I have assumed wrongly.

I don't know what "macro-evolutionism" means.

If you're referring to the Theory of Evolution, then I do accept that it's the best scientific explanation for the current diversity of life on Earth and that it does an adequate job of explaining changing populations of biological organisms over time. Plus, it's an applied science.

All of this is naturally couched in the fundamental basis for scientific inquiry which includes the idea that the universe is inherently objective. Because if it wasn't, then it's a bit of a moot point.

 

[AACJ]

Sure. I told you what I have faith in. What's your point?

No, you have not. Only by implication. It takes no faith to believe you exist or that the universe exists. You know the real definition of faith when the proven authority figure asks you to simply and only take them at their word when your life is on the line.

 

[pitabread]

No, you have not. Only by implication. It take no faith to believe you exist or that the universe exists.

How does one prove the universe exists? How do you prove I exist? For all we know, everything could be an illusion. How could you tell otherwise?

You know the real definition of faith when the proven authority figure asks you to simply and only take them at their word when your life is on the line.

Please tell me you're not going to go all preachy on me. That's really boring.

 

[Job 33:6]

It was your baby, ironclad you thought... and you 'took it to the bank'. Then someone in the scientific camp comes along with evidence that compromises your claim. You won't give up on it... you can't.

Read post 2045.

 

[AACJ]

How does one prove the universe exists? How do you prove I exist? For all we know, everything could be an illusion. How could you tell otherwise?



Please tell me you're not going to go all preachy on me. That's really boring.

So the atheists and presumed agnostics on this site can "preach" to others, but belivers in Christ Jesus cannot? What and if I am getting "preachy"? That has nothing to do with the merits of my arguments.

 

[Speedwell]

So the atheists and presumed agnostics on this site can "preach" to others, but belivers in Christ Jesus cannot? What and if I am getting "preachy"? That has nothing to do with the merits of my arguments.

Because you are not preaching the Gospel of Christ, you are preaching the doctrine of a literal Genesis.