How to choose between creation and evolution.

[Snappy1]

Seriously, let's get this answered since it's the premise of the OP. Define creation, in a specific, nonvague way and point out the scientists that, through observation of evidence, came to the conclusion of "creation" without having an apriori religious belief.

 

[mark kennedy]

That's a tritism, not a scientific proposition.

Also the law of biogenesis. Life comes from life because that's the only way we have ever seen it done.

That's almost correct. Evolution simply does not address the first, primordial life. Evolution only deals with extant life that reproduces and passes on genetic material to offspring.[/quote

Yes, how life began has little to do with it, it's a living theory. The point of origin is a philosophical one, actually it's a metaphysical question.

Well it's a good thing that no part of evolution or the theory of evolution proposes, suggests or even implies "something from nothing".

Except for abiogenesis, the logical conclusion of the theory of evolution given it's naturalistic assumptions.

Oh, and that also is a tritism, not a scientific proposition.

Or we could call it normative biogenesis.

 

[pitabread]

To say that the theory of evolution is a "philosophy of natural history" is both inaccurate and misleading.

What mark really means is metaphysical naturalism which for some reason he has decided to label as "Darwinism" and conflates with methodological naturalism and the Theory of Evolution, thus completely muddying the waters and confusing anyone who dares have a conversation with him about it.

This has also been pointed out many times to him in the past, so at this point I think he's just doing it on purpose.

 

[pitabread]

nevermind

 

[USincognito]

If you take a good hard look at evolution you will see that it cannot supply the answers to where we came from.

"Where we came from" has a metaphysical component. It would be more accurate to say that evolution describes our long term ancestry and, in that, it does a magificent job and provides many, many answers.

Even if you don't take into account first life.

Evolution doesn't, so let's move on.

Evolution says that animals evolved because they had to in order to survive.

Evolution says no such thing. The accurate description of evolution is naturally occurring differences in populations leads to some of them being more reproductively successful in certain environments.

What I would like explained from Evolutionists is that if an animal did not have what it took to survive in a hostile environment, how did that animal thrive to produce offspring?
In one single generation it had to have mutated offspring while unable to survive.
Why wouldn't the animal just move to a different environment?

Since your premise is a straw man, your question is not germane.
- Evolution does not take place in a single generation.
- Populations evolve slowly in stable environments.
- Populations tend to evolve quickly when niches open up after local or global extinction events or if it finds itself in reproductive isolation.
- 95% of populations did not adjust to changes in the environment and have gone extinct.

 

[mark kennedy]

That's not the law of biogenesis.

Yea, actually it is:

Biogenesis is the production of new living organisms or organelles. Conceptually, biogenesis is primarily attributed to Louis Pasteur and encompasses the belief that complex living things come only from other living things, by means of reproduction. (Biogenesis, Wikipedia)​

 

[OldWiseGuy]

An argument from authority or an argument from ignorance, what you know or don't know. It's the same thing, it's irrelevant to the actual evidence.

?

 

[pitabread]

nevermind

 

[mark kennedy]

What mark really means is metaphysical naturalism which for some reason he has decided to label as "Darwinism" and conflates with methodological naturalism and the Theory of Evolution, thus completely muddying the waters and confusing anyone who dares have a conversation with him about it.

This has also been pointed out many times to him in the past, so at this point I think he's just doing it on purpose.

No I know what I was saying and I would call it dialectical materialism. The subject of origins is not a scientific one, it's a metaphysical question.

 

[mark kennedy]

?

An argument from incredulity is an argument from ignorance, in other words if you don't have the education or background you don't understand so you don't believe it. An argument from credulity is when someone is learned or otherwise authoritative on the subject and basis the credibility of the argument on that. Both are equally flawed logically, and I think the later is more common.

 

[LordKroak10]

Nonsense, it's either a phenomenon or it's a theory of natural history known as Darwinism.
Science is a philosophy, it's called epistemology (theories of knowledge), the word literally means knowledge. You guys are fun.

You seem to be making a number of erroneous equivalencies. Evolution is a naturally occurring phenomenon. Evolutionary theory is an explanation of what we see in nature and in research, i.e., a scientific theory. A scientific theory is defined as "an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested, in accordance with the scientific method, using a predefined protocol of observation and experiment." We cannot yet test evolution as a whole, but we have successfully tested many of its most important components. Also, natural history is more concerned with observation than experimentation, setting it apart from science.

Science is derived from philosophy, but they are not one and the same. If you think they are, I would recommend researching the question yourself. I can explain the difference here. Philosophy seeks to understand the nature of existence, of man, and the relationships between the two. Philosophy, by definition, does this using reason and logic-based arguments. Science is only concerned with natural phenomena, and attempts to explain such phenomena using empirical data. Epistemology is a sub-domain of philosophy, if you were trying to claim that those were the same thing as well.

Also, I would appreciate leaving out comments like "You guys are fun," as they immediately paint you as someone who believes themselves to be superior to others, and therefore incapable of civil discussion.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

An argument from incredulity is an argument from ignorance, in other words if you don't have the education or background you don't understand so you don't believe it. An argument from credulity is when someone is learned or otherwise authoritative on the subject and basis the credibility of the argument on that. Both are equally flawed logically, and I think the later is more common.

Sorry. I looked at the evidence and became incredulous because of the unbelievable claims of evolution. So where do I fit in?

 

[expos4ever]

Life comes from life. Nobody disputes that.

Many people dispute this. The fact that the "first steps" are presently a mystery does not justify a conclusion that "life comes from life".

 

[LordKroak10]

Yea, actually it is:

Biogenesis is the production of new living organisms or organelles. Conceptually, biogenesis is primarily attributed to Louis Pasteur and encompasses the belief that complex living things come only from other living things, by means of reproduction. (Biogenesis, Wikipedia)​

Biogenesis is not a scientific law, you either made up that fact or are relying on information sources that are decades old. Currently, abiogenesis is considered to be the most likely explanation for the origins of life.

 

[mark kennedy]

You seem to be making a number of erroneous equivalencies. Evolution is a naturally occurring phenomenon. Evolutionary theory is an explanation of what we see in nature and in research, i.e., a scientific theory. A scientific theory is defined as "an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested, in accordance with the scientific method, using a predefined protocol of observation and experiment." We cannot yet test evolution as a whole, but we have successfully tested many of its most important components. Also, natural history is more concerned with observation than experimentation, setting it apart from science.

No actually it's the change of alleles (traits) in populations over time. I know what scientific methodology is and it's not the a priori assumption of universal common descent. That's dialectical materialism that bears no resemblance to science.

Science is derived from philosophy, but they are not one and the same. If you think they are, I would recommend researching the question yourself. I can explain the difference here. Philosophy seeks to understand the nature of existence, of man, and the relationships between the two. Philosophy, by definition, does this using reason and logic-based arguments. Science is only concerned with natural phenomena, and attempts to explain such phenomena using empirical data. Epistemology is a sub-domain of philosophy, if you were trying to claim that those were the same thing as well.

I have researched it extensively and spent a great deal of time exploring the Scientific Revolution. It was a shift from the deductive approach of Aristotelian Scholasticism to the inductive approach first proposed by Francis Bacon and later established by Sir Isaac Newton. It's an epistemology (theory of knowledge), specifically focused on natural phenomenon.

Also, I would appreciate leaving out comments like "You guys are fun," as they immediately paint you as someone who believes themselves to be superior to others, and therefore incapable of civil discussion.

But you guys are so much fun, a little pedantic, but it's always a hoot. It never ceases to amaze me how many of you don't have the slightest interest in science and yet pretend to defend it.

 

[mark kennedy]

Biogenesis is not a scientific law, you either made up that fact or are relying on information sources that are decades old. Currently, abiogenesis is considered to be the most likely explanation for the origins of life.

How about the laws of inheritance? Know anything about that?

 

[mark kennedy]

Sorry. I looked at the evidence and became incredulous because of the unbelievable claims of evolution. So where do I fit in?

You don't, you seem preoccupied with personal taunts, it's called an ad hominem argument and it's fallacious. I'm not incredulous, just reserve the right to remain unconvinced.

 

[LordKroak10]

How about the laws of inheritance? Know anything about that?

How about dropping the superiority and trying to speak to me as an equal? Or are you incapable of that because you think of yourself as being superior? The laws of inheritance are pretty self-explanatory but are unrelated to your claim that biogenesis is a scientific law, which it is not. The formation of self-replicating molecules is necessary for inheritance, obviously, but your claim says nothing about where those self-replicating molecules came from. Considering the entire body of scientific knowledge, we must assume that life arose from inorganic compounds, unless you try to argue that life existed at the beginning of the universe, for which there exists no evidence.

 

[mark kennedy]

How about dropping the superiority and trying to speak to me as an equal? Or are you incapable of that because you think of yourself as being superior? The laws of inheritance are pretty self-explanatory but are unrelated to your claim that biogenesis is a scientific law, which it is not. The formation of self-replicating molecules is necessary for inheritance, obviously, but your claim says nothing about where those self-replicating molecules came from. Considering the entire body of scientific knowledge, we must assume that life arose from inorganic compounds, unless you try to argue that life existed at the beginning of the universe, for which there exists no evidence.

I'm a creationist so obviously I believe God created life. I don't know what you mean about 'superiority' but I may be a step or two ahead of you because I've researched and debated this since 2003. What I mean about the law of biogenesis was that life come from life, that goes back to Louis Pasteur:

Biogenesis is primarily attributed to Louis Pasteur and encompasses the belief that complex living things come only from other living things, by means of reproduction. (Biogenesis Wikipedia)​

It's the only way we have ever seen it done. Now apparently you've never heard of the Mendelian Laws of Inheritance so let me offer you a little information on the subject. There are three:

Law of Segregation of genes (the "First Law")
Law of Independent Assortment (the "Second Law")
Law of Dominance (the "Third Law") (Mendelian Inheritance. Wikipedia)​

That's not a taunt, those are the laws that govern procreation on this planet.

 

[LordKroak10]

I'm a creationist so obviously I believe God created life. I don't know what you mean about 'superiority' but I may be a step or two ahead of you because I've researched and debated this since 2003.

So you see nothing about the phrase "I may be a step or two ahead of you" that would indicate an attitude of superiority, arrogance, and condescension? That would be a very impressive abandonment of introspection.

I feel no need to justify myself to you by rattling off my credentials, so if you believe you can write me off without justification, so be it. Biogenesis is not a law. In the Wikipedia article you so helpfully provided, nowhere does it mention the status of biogenesis as a law. It is the only way we have seen life arise, but to claim that direct observation is necessary to understand the world is to deny an enormous body of human knowledge. We have no directly observable evidence of humans building the pyramids, but we don't believe they came about by themselves (as just one example). Obviously I know Mendel's work and the laws associated with it. What's your point there?