Help a (creationist) brother out?

[inquiring mind]

You realise, I hope, that the phrase "just a theory" brands you as someone ignorant of biology in general and evolutionary theory in particular. Consequently, your posts are likely to be ignored, treated with indifference, or simply laughed at. I doubt you were aiming for that - so you might want to avoid the phrase in future, or at least learn why it is so foolish.

Come on Ophiolite, surely you’re not trying to pass macroevolution off as ‘law’ again? Your take is based on biology in general and evolutionary theory in particular, which is loaded with interpretive evidence, and a lot of unobservable conjecture and connecting-the-dots. How is this microevolution "God placed within each species genetic information which allows the different kinds of plants and animals God created to adapt in various situations and environment." any less a theory?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Come on Ophiolite, surely you’re not trying to pass macroevolution off as ‘law’ again?

Please provide one single quote where @Ophiolite called any kind of evolution a law.

 

[driewerf]

You realise, I hope, that the phrase "just a theory" brands you as someone ignorant of biology in general and evolutionary theory in particular. Consequently, your posts are likely to be ignored, treated with indifference, or simply laughed at. I doubt you were aiming for that - so you might want to avoid the phrase in future, or at least learn why it is so foolish.

I suggest a slightly different approach: that his comments would be thoroughly analysed, discussed, debated, ripped apart even. But not laughed at. That helps nobody.

 

[Ophiolite]

Come on Ophiolite, surely you’re not trying to pass macroevolution off as ‘law’ again? Your take is based on biology in general and evolutionary theory in particular, which is loaded with interpretive evidence, and a lot of unobservable conjecture and connecting-the-dots. How is this microevolution "God placed within each species genetic information which allows the different kinds of plants and animals God created to adapt in various situations and environment." any less a theory?

1. I have never attempted to pass of macroevolution as a 'law', or a law, a "law", or even a Law. Unless by 'law' you mean a well established aspect of evolution, relating to the emergence through natural selection and other evolutionary processes of major changes in a population's genetics.
2. My take is based upon an integrated biology that draws upon the work of tens of thousands of dedicated researchers in a diversity of inter-related fields and not the cartoon misrepresentation you have tried to pass off as reality.
3. Your quoted speculation (not a theory) lacks every essential feature of a theory. Where is the falsification potential? Where are the repeatable and oft repeated observations, tests and experiments? Where is the co-ordinated evidence from a multitude of perspectives? Nowhere.

 

[Ophiolite]

I suggest a slightly different approach: that his comments would be thoroughly analysed, discussed, debated, ripped apart even. But not laughed at. That helps nobody.

I offered a warning, of what will occur. That does not mean I approve of it.

 

[inquiring mind]

Please provide one single quote where @Ophiolite called any kind of evolution a law.

You do realize that if he thinks it's a theory, by his own statement he brands himself as someone ignorant of biology in general and evolutionary theory in particular... "You realise, I hope, that the phrase "just a theory" brands you as someone ignorant of biology in general and evolutionary theory in particular."

 

[Ophiolite]

You do realize that if he thinks it's a theory, by his own statement he brands himself as someone ignorant of biology in general and evolutionary theory in particular... "You realise, I hope, that the phrase "just a theory" brands you as someone ignorant of biology in general and evolutionary theory in particular."

I don't know whether that is deliberately provocative, or just dramatically ill-informed. Maybe it's both.

The Theory of Evolution meets all the criteria of an authentic scientific theory. The subject of the OP is not 'just a theory', it's not a theory, it's not even a hypothesis. It is a speculation.

This petulant "just a theory" nonsense has been exposed, examined, debated, disinterred, deflated and defibrillated umpteen times on this forum. I'm not going down that rabbit hole again, today.

 

[Tinker Grey]

You do realize that if he thinks it's a theory, by his own statement he brands himself as someone ignorant of biology in general and evolutionary theory in particular... "You realise, I hope, that the phrase "just a theory" brands you as someone ignorant of biology in general and evolutionary theory in particular."

So ya got nothing. K.

 

[inquiring mind]

I don't know whether that is deliberately provocative, or just dramatically ill-informed. Maybe it's both.

It's your statement... you explain it.

The Theory of Evolution meets all the criteria of an authentic scientific theory. The subject of the OP is not 'just a theory', it's not a theory, it's not even a hypothesis. It is a speculation.

This petulant "just a theory" nonsense has been exposed, examined, debated, disinterred, deflated and defibrillated umpteen times on this forum. I'm not going down that rabbit hole again, today.

Sounds like a double standard to me, but I respect your wish to not pursue it.

 

[Ophiolite]

It's your statement... you explain it.

I am referring to your use of it. Missuse of it would be closer.

Sounds like a double standard to me, but I respect your wish to not pursue it.

It will always sound like a double standard to you until you educate yourself in the subject properly. I have no interest in helping you do so until you show (convincingly) that you have such an interest.

 

[inquiring mind]

I am referring to your use of it. Missuse of it would be closer.
It will always sound like a double standard to you until you educate yourself in the subject properly. I have no interest in helping you do so until you show (convincingly) that you have such an interest.

I think I'll play the rabbit hole avoidance card myself.

 

[Occams Barber]

It's a good point, but, to be fair, I don't think it's explicit hypocrisy, more a case of unconscious bias (selection bias, confirmation bias, etc).

It takes an objective viewpoint to see that the net result is exactly what one would expect from a world where supernatural entities do not interfere and miracles are just statistically rare (unlikely) events.

Perhaps hypocrisy is not quite the right word but there is a definite tendency to give God all the credit and none of the blame.

OB

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Perhaps hypocrisy is not quite the right word but there is a definite tendency to give God all the credit and none of the blame.

Indeed, whether it's part of God's Plan or an 'act of God', God can't be blamed - but what can be blamed is human failure to understand the bigger picture - 'God works in mysterious ways...'

I also find it a bit sad when so many elite athletes who win some event, start by thanking God for their success, as if good genes, dedication, the support of many people, and good old-fashioned chance, were incidental, and all the others who did not succeed were not singled out for God's beneficence... and smug affirmations like, 'God helps those that help themselves', with its suggestion that failure implies lack of effort.

 

[inquiring mind]

Indeed, whether it's part of God's Plan or an 'act of God', God can't be blamed - but what can be blamed is human failure to understand the bigger picture - 'God works in mysterious ways...'

I agree, but you might add 'no intervention of God' to the list.

I also find it a bit sad when so many elite athletes who win some event, start by thanking God for their success, as if good genes, dedication, the support of many people, and good old-fashioned chance, were incidental, and all the others who did not succeed were not singled out for God's beneficence

Yes, a little over zealous and insensitive to others, even if they're really just being thankful.

and smug affirmations like, 'God helps those that help themselves', with its suggestion that failure implies lack of effort.

This shouldn't be a boast, even though the lack of effort may be true in some instances.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Come on Ophiolite, surely you’re not trying to pass macroevolution off as ‘law’ again? Your take is based on biology in general and evolutionary theory in particular, which is loaded with interpretive evidence, and a lot of unobservable conjecture and connecting-the-dots. How is this microevolution "God placed within each species genetic information which allows the different kinds of plants and animals God created to adapt in various situations and environment." any less a theory?

Because there is no scientific evidence for the claim of "God placed within each species genetic information which allows the different kinds of plants and animals God created to adapt in various situations and environment."

To be a scientific theory, which evolution is, it has to be supported by scientific evidence.

 

[Shemjaza]

Come on Ophiolite, surely you’re not trying to pass macroevolution off as ‘law’ again? Your take is based on biology in general and evolutionary theory in particular, which is loaded with interpretive evidence, and a lot of unobservable conjecture and connecting-the-dots. How is this microevolution "God placed within each species genetic information which allows the different kinds of plants and animals God created to adapt in various situations and environment." any less a theory?

The problem is that your idea isn't supported by evidence and features undefined or undefinable elements.

I have never seen "genetic information" as used by ID proponents and other Creationists given an objective method of measurement.

 

[inquiring mind]

Because there is no scientific evidence for the claim of "God placed within each species genetic information which allows the different kinds of plants and animals God created to adapt in various situations and environment."

To be a scientific theory, which evolution is, it has to be supported by scientific evidence.

The problem is that your idea isn't supported by evidence and features undefined or undefinable elements.

I have never seen "genetic information" as used by ID proponents and other Creationists given an objective method of measurement.

Science has no power of determination regarding God, what He did or didn’t do one way or the other. Neither can it determine that macroevolution took place, except through a measure of speculation. Sure, there is a lot of evidence in the physical sense, just like there’s a lot of inspirational evidence for God. We can’t see behind the ‘curtain of time,’ so both origins are primarily reasoning, theories, speculation, or whatever you want to refer to them as if one of those don’t fit. But as far as adaptation and variation goes, it is on this side of the curtain, and is observable microevolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Science has no power of determination regarding God, what He did or didn’t do one way or the other. Neither can it determine that macroevolution took place, except through a measure of speculation. Sure, there is a lot of evidence in the physical sense, just like there’s a lot of inspirational evidence for God. We can’t see behind the ‘curtain of time,’ so both origins are primarily reasoning, theories, speculation, or whatever you want to refer to them as if one of those don’t fit. But as far as adaptation and variation goes, it is on this side of the curtain, and is observable microevolution.

Sorry, but what evidence do you think supports the silly claim? "Inspirational evidence" is a made up category and does not appear that it would be reliable evidence at all. And remember, we were not the one that made the God claim. If God did certain things that can be tested. I am assuming that God does not lie. If that is true then we know that there was no Flood of Noah for example. A general God cannot be refuted or confirmed by science but a specific one can be. Refuting the rather obviously false version of God given does not refute God in general.

 

[Bradskii]

But as far as adaptation and variation goes, it is on this side of the curtain, and is observable microevolution.

Can you give me any evidence for when and why it stops at some given point?

 

[coffee4u]

A few weeks ago, a creationist claimed:

"God placed within each species genetic information which allows the different kinds of plants and animals God created to adapt in various situations and environment."​

I asked for evidence for this claim, no response. I provided a link for a genome database search tool to help this creationist find the evidence he apparently thought existed, to no avail.

Can any creationist provide what your creationist brother was incapable of doing?

Or shall we chalk this u to lame 'winessing'?

This is more about you asking the impossible and then blaming him for being unable to show you the impossible.
This is no different then someone asking for proof over God's existence or non existence.

The world as it was created is gone. Everything changed and corrupted at the fall and then what was left was wiped out and changed again at the flood. We have what is left to look at. Those animal kinds that he mentioned, they are not around to be examined so how could he get you information on them?

There is no evidence, these things are taken on faith the same way it is faith that says God exists and I would also say, that your claim that God doesn't exist is also a type of faith. You might say that isn't faith, but you don't have any proof of his non existence which to me is faith.