How to choose between creation and evolution.

[Brightmoon]

Studying anatomy confirms design. Studying evolution is confusing. I need order.

Studying anatomy confirms relatedness. Creationism is the confusing one. Separate creation with no verifiable evidence and major violations of well known physical laws which are handwaved away by creationists. Then there are the deliberate lies and the silly ploys they use to prevent you from getting a coherent explanation; like changing scientific terminology definitions to suit their agendas.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Ok it's also in the third edition, I found it on Talk Origins. This is the extended quote:

Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on the subject excited much attention. This justly-celebrated naturalist first published his views in 1801; he much enlarged them in 1809 in his "Philosophie Zoologique,' and subsequently, in 1815, in the Introduction to his "Hist. Nat. des Animaux sans Vertébres.' In these works he upholds the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. Lamarck seems to have been chiefly led to his conclusion on the gradual change of species, by the difficulty of distinguishing species and varieties, by the almost perfect gradation of forms in certain groups, and by the analogy of domestic productions. With respect to the means of modification, he attributed something to the direct action of the physical conditions of life, something to the crossing of already existing forms, and much to use and disuse, that is, to the effects of habit. To this latter agency he seemed to attribute all the beautiful adaptations in nature; -- such as the long neck of the giraffe for browsing on the branches of trees. But he likewise believed in a law of progressive development; and as all the forms of life thus tend to progress, in order to account for the existence at the present day of simple productions, he maintains that such forms are now spontaneously generated. (The Origin of Species Preface to the Third Edition by Charles Darwin)
​

I bolded the part I originally quoted.

OK, thanks. I think it would be better to include the qualification - "the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition."

That's important in science.

 

[mark kennedy]

OK, thanks. I think it would be better to include the qualification - "the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition."

That's important in science.

Your the first one to notice that one, and yea your right. Of course if you look at it that way, the probability of miraculous interposition comes into play. Approach with caution.

 

[Brightmoon]

It’s not caution it’s simply that no one can verify supernatural causation.

Note the date, 1801, about 60 years before Darwin or Wallace. The idea of common descent was floating around long before Darwin and Wallace yet, creationists vilify Darwin and hold him up as some sort of demigod that atheists have to worship. Haeckel gets that treatment too. I always thought that was kinda comical.

 

[rjs330]

This is never a good sign...



Nice invoking of So's Law. And you do it twice.



No, you don't "got it".

If you say there is no evidence for evolution, that is a lie. Period.
If you say there is evidence for the Flood, that is a lie. Period.
If you say that there are no transitional fossil, that is a lie. Period.
If you say there there are no beneficial mutations, that is a lie. Period.

And no. Scientists do not "interpret" fossils as transitonal. There is a very clear defintion of what a transitional fossil is - one that exhibits the characteristics of two different taxa - and we have those by the thousands. No "interpretation" needed.

There is no evidence of evolution from a common ancestor. None. What you have is an interpretation of science. A great example is ERVs. ERVs are touted as evidence of common ancestry, but it's not really. It's interpreted as evidence. I can interpret that it is evidence of common design.

There are no transitional fossils. I have yet to find an evolutionists that can show me one. What you find is fossils fully formed and use them such as the horse fossil to say it's transitional. All you did was interpret the fossils to mean they are transitional.

 

[rjs330]

I'm going to present you with verifiable evidence showing common ancestry, but

Spoiler: my prediction

I predict you will use "verifiable" as a weasel word to not only not address the evidence, but to simply hand wave it away

.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution/Common Descent

I've already read this more than once. They are not evidence of common ancestry. Every single one is assumed to mean common ancestry. None of them.

You interpret them to mean common ancestry. You cannot show common ancestry because it cannot be verified, tested or reproduced . You cannot show all things came from one thing. It's impossible. All you can really show is life is made up of common biological elements. Common design.

 

[rjs330]

How many times has anyone come up with a single cogent argument against even one of the evidences?

Every time.

 

[USincognito]

There is no evidence of evolution from a common ancestor. None.

I'm sorry, but this simply is a lie. There is enormous amounts of support for common ancestry and trying to hand wave it away with magic words like "interpretations" does not address the evidence or make it go away.

There are no transitional fossils. I have yet to find an evolutionists that can show me one. What you find is fossils fully formed and use them such as the horse fossil to say it's transitional. All you did was interpret the fossils to mean they are transitional.

Again, this is simply a lie. There are 10s of thousands of transitional fossils representing hundreds of lineages. You also don't appear to understand what a transitional fossil means. All fossils are "fully formed". No one who knows what they're talking about thinks we should find a half-whatever. What we do find are beings that have the characteristics of two different taxa. Sometimes we even find enough of them to line them up and see the smooth transition over time. Anyone who looks at this series of skulls and denies they are transition is deluded or dishonest.

 

[r4.h]

Irony

Exactly, and yet your friends wont admit human remains all end up as dust given enough time. Wether they are different elements is neither here nor there as dust encompasses all. The argument is that the bible correctly states we are made up of elements found in the earth, and when we die that is where it returns.

 

[USincognito]

I've already read this more than once.

Sure you have.

They are not evidence of common ancestry.

Again, you're trying to hand wave the evidence away instead of actually addressing it. Until you can actually address it and show why it's not evidence, it remains evidence. Simply stamping your feet and shouting "No!" doesn't make the evidence go away.

Every single one is assumed to mean common ancestry.

Again, your magic words don't make the evidence go away. You need to actually address the evidence. You have not done that.

You cannot show common ancestry because it cannot be verified, tested or reproduced .

1. "Verified" is not part of the scientific method.
2. If you actually had read any of the essays you claim to have read repeatedly, you would know that in each of them Theobald proposes an observation which will verify the hypothesis. He then lists and cites sources for the observation and verification. All you have don't is stamp your feet and shout, "No!".
3. A lot of folks don't understand that observations and analysis needs to be repeated, not the object or event itself. For instance we can study geology without having to recreate the earth in a lab.

You cannot show all things came from one thing. It's impossible. All you can really show is life is made up of common biological elements. Common design.

1. This is false. All the evidence points to universal common ancestry.
2. Common design is an ad hoc proposition and unfalsifiable meaning it's not scientific. Additionally it fails miserably to explain things like:
- 203,000 ERVs shared by humans and chimpanzees
- a broken GULO gene shared by all Haplorhine primates including humans
- a non-functioning Sonic Hedgehog/Hand2 gene pathway for hind limb development in whales
- non-functioning VTG genes for yolk sac development in all therian mammals

Until "common design" can explain observations like these, it's useless.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Anyone who looks at this series of skulls and denies they are transition is deluded or dishonest.
View attachment 223380

I just see a bunch of different skulls.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Sure you have.



Again, you're trying to hand wave the evidence away instead of actually addressing it. Until you can actually address it and show why it's not evidence, it remains evidence. Simply stamping your feet and shouting "No!" doesn't make the evidence go away.



Again, your magic words don't make the evidence go away. You need to actually address the evidence. You have not done that.



1. "Verified" is not part of the scientific method.
2. If you actually had read any of the essays you claim to have read repeatedly, you would know that in each of them Theobald proposes an observation which will verify the hypothesis. He then lists and cites sources for the observation and verification. All you have don't is stamp your feet and shout, "No!".
3. A lot of folks don't understand that observations and analysis needs to be repeated, not the object or event itself. For instance we can study geology without having to recreate the earth in a lab.



1. This is false. All the evidence points to universal common ancestry.
2. Common design is an ad hoc proposition and unfalsifiable meaning it's not scientific. Additionally it fails miserably to explain things like:
- 203,000 ERVs shared by humans and chimpanzees
- a broken GULO gene shared by all Haplorhine primates including humans
- a non-functioning Sonic Hedgehog/Hand2 gene pathway for hind limb development in whales
- non-functioning VTG genes for yolk sac development in all therian mammals

Or it's part of the "strong delusion" God sent.

 

[r4.h]

Page 92 of Charles Darwins autobiography. He concedes that in light of all the beauty and mystery of the universe, he is to be considered a theist.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Page 92 of Charles Darwins autobiography. He concedes that in light of all the beauty and mystery of the universe, he is to be considered a theist.

And why is that an important distinction to make? That changes nothing about the theory of evolution being true.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

If it is not explicitly stated, maybe it's not important.

That is a difficult question to answer, as we don't really know what the original authors of the Bible meant, and if the texts changed over time (which it appears that they did) then perhaps there never was an original specific intention.

I've looked at different translations of the Bible and some say 'soil' and some say 'dust'. So, we have ambiguity just from that. If the original term, as much as there can be an 'original term' is ambiguous, then I'm not sure how much or what meaning we should take.

I can see how someone who believes in theistic evolution would consider it unimportant as I'm guessing (please correct me if I'm wrong) that you would consider the creation story of the Bible to be an analogy or similar to theistic evolution.

However, when the Bible is interpreted that loosely, it makes me wonder how much of your religion is from The Bible and how much is effectively something that you create through interpretation. But, that's going off topic.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Every time.

If you use the search box with the term ' 29+ evidences evolution' then you get 780 results. Could you please point out the cogent arguments against the evidences in a few of these threads?

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Exactly, and yet your friends wont admit human remains all end up as dust given enough time. Wether they are different elements is neither here nor there as dust encompasses all. The argument is that the bible correctly states we are made up of elements found in the earth, and when we die that is where it returns.

I do not accept your definition of 'dust' as 'encompassing all'. How about you restate your argument using different terms so that we can see what you mean. I think you mean 'all non-living physical matter' when you say 'dust', but to avoid misunderstanding I would like you to confirm it.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Your the first one to notice that one, and yea your right. Of course if you look at it that way, the probability of miraculous interposition comes into play. Approach with caution.

The point is that it's not ruled out.

Changes that do not appear to be the result of natural laws are candidates for further investigation - usually resolved as a novel application of an existing law, or more rarely, a new law.

 

[mark kennedy]

The point is that it's not ruled out.

Changes that do not appear to be the result of natural laws are candidates for further investigation - usually resolved as a novel application of an existing law, or more rarely, a new law.

Well if you look at what Darwin is actually arguing against, it's called special creation. I honestly don't think he was concerned with the Genesis account, something known as catastrophicism where the earth is destroyed and species created repeatedly. They further believed that species were fully formed and didn't change that much. Darwin was simply arguing that species had evolved on a massive scale, even at the level of genus but he never really went beyond that.

I've always like Darwin, I've never really understood why evolutionists appear to be disinterested in that philosophy of natural history. Mendel, a contemporary of Charles Darwin, produced a model that became the basis of the laws of inheritance. I've often wondered what Darwin would have thought of Mendel's experiments but his work was published in German. Darwin had an uncut copy of it in his library but he couldn't read German so we will never know.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Well if you look at what Darwin is actually arguing against, it's called special creation. I honestly don't think he was concerned with the Genesis account, something known as catastrophicism where the earth is destroyed and species created repeatedly. They further believed that species were fully formed and didn't change that much. Darwin was simply arguing that species had evolved on a massive scale, even at the level of genus but he never really went beyond that.

I don't think that Darwin was arguing against anything. He observed patterns among living things and came up with an explanation for those patterns. That's it. I don't see that as an argument against anything. I see it as a positive step only. It may be inconsistent with other explanations of the natural world, but I don't think that Darwin was actively positioning the ToE as an argument against them. This is a difference of motivation.

I've always like Darwin, I've never really understood why evolutionists appear to be disinterested in that philosophy of natural history. Mendel, a contemporary of Charles Darwin, produced a model that became the basis of the laws of inheritance. I've often wondered what Darwin would have thought of Mendel's experiments but his work was published in German. Darwin had an uncut copy of it in his library but he couldn't read German so we will never know.

What do you mean by 'disinterested in that philosophy of natural history?