How to choose between creation and evolution.

[Speedwell]

I was kinda suggesting that the 'creator' could just be something like natural law; i.e. stuff exists (just is), and natural laws keep shuffling it around.

There's nothing wrong with attributing it to a god, if that's what you want. What I object to is creationists trying to prove that it's their god, in order to advance their political agenda.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

There's nothing wrong with attributing it to a god, if that's what you want. What I object to is creationists trying to prove that it's their god, in order to advance their political agenda.

An argument against attributing it to a god is that it simply replaces a single potentially explicable unknown with multiple of inexplicable unknowns (what is it, where is it, how did it get there, how does it function, why did it create, etc., etc.); i.e. you can't explain the unexplained with the inexplicable. Occam's Razor isn't the half of it... it may be emotionally comforting, but rationally, you're better sticking with "I don't know" or even just plain "inexplicable", rather than generating a complex inexplicable narrative.

Seems to me we have enough waiting to be explained without making up complex inexplicables.

 

[Astrophile]

Not if they keep changing and rearranging their theories. Creationism doesn't change, and we're holding out that science will finally come to the same conclusion. After all they are studying the creation.

You presumably believe that the universe, as we observe it, is consistent with the theory of creationism, and that therefore it is inconsistent with the theory of evolution. A universe that was consistent with evolution would be different from the universe that we observe. So, if evolution was true, in what ways do you think the universe would be different? Would cats give birth to dogs, or would ducklings hatch out of swan's eggs, or would Japanese parents give birth to Nigerian children?

Would meteorites and terrestrial, lunar and Martian rocks yield radiometric ages of hundreds or thousands of millions of years, rather than merely thousands of years, or would the succession of sedimentary rocks be tens of kilometres thick, rather than only a few tens of metres thick? (Sorry, meteorites and rocks do yield radiometric ages of hundreds or thousands of millions of years, and the sedimentary successions are tens of kilometres thick.)

To summarise, if it is possible to choose between theories of creationism and evolution, the theories must make different predictions. So what predictions does evolutionary theory make that are inconsistent with observations?

Finally, it is not possible to prove that the universe was not created by a god. All that can be proved is that the theory of young earth creationism based on the book of Genesis is false.

 

[Ophiolite]

I've perused many evolution papers. None make sense to me. In fact it seems they want to draw one into the minutiae, the 'trees' if you will, so we will ignore the 'forest'.

I have to concede that I am coming to realise that your ignorance is genuine. You really do not get what is moderately straightforward to those of us who have studied the matter and largely understood it.

Your comments reveal that not only don't you understand evolutionary theory, you really don't understand the scientific method, or the nature of scientists. I'm saying this, not as an attack on you, but as belated recognition that - given your ignorance in these matters - it is not really surprising that you find it impossible to accept the findings.

Of course most research papers deal with the minutiae. I am bemused that you are surprised by this and disappointed you assign an ulterior motive to the practice. The broad character of evolution is well established. There is no need to publish papers merely to repeat what is already known.

Researchers are, for the most part, concerned with how the details of evolution work out in specific species, or environments, or in regard to particular tissues, or specific behaviours, or specific metabolisms, or specific genes. So, naturally, they are dealing with the minutiae.

Most papers also, in their conclusion, set those minutiae in a slightly wider context. Periodically a review paper will consider such a wider context and pull together the recent work, commenting on current consensus and remaining issues. And, once in a while, a deeper far reaching idea will emerge and be thrown into the arena for consideration, attack and eventual success or dismemberment.

If you want an overview, there are hundreds of text books and popular science books looking at the forest, all based upon the minutiae that so befuddle you.

You suggest the focus on minutiae is to deflect attention from the overview to the details, so that we ignore the overview. That is a ridiculous idea. Do you really think thousands of researchers are deliberately writing about the minutiae because they care one jot about the bizarre views of a minority group of Christians? They are concerned with important matters, not trivia!

 

[Shemjaza]

Naw. Here it's not about God, but just about the Bible. You can believe what you want about God, but if it doesn't agree with a literal interpretation of Genesis it's a lie from the pit of Hell.

I notice that the standard YECs who take a "obvious, only literal interpretation" don't engage with the more extreme Flat Earthers who use exactly the same arguments.

 

[Jjmcubbin]

I've perused many evolution papers. None make sense to me. In fact it seems they want to draw one into the minutiae, the 'trees' if you will, so we will ignore the 'forest'.

I think it's safe to say that history will judge this debate (in the future of course).

Of course they won't make sense to you, you find meiosis and recombination complicated. Scientific papers are at a way higher level. The stuff I wrote is school material.

 

[Jimmy D]

Not if they keep changing and rearranging their theories. Creationism doesn't change, and we're holding out that science will finally come to the same conclusion. After all they are studying the creation.

(Edit: I should have read through the rest of the thread first, I see other members have responded to this gem more succinctly than me).

This made me laugh, "Creationism doesn't change" indeed. Does it occur to you that it's so vague as to be meaningless? You can't even get your story straight.

How long is a creation "day"? A day? A thousand years? A geological era? What is a kind? A species? Genus? Family? Order? How do you explain the fossil record? Dinosaurs? Where did the flood waters come from and go? What were neanderthals? What is the physical limit of adaptation that prevents a change of kind? Etc, I could go on and on.

I doubt that there are two creationists in the US that would give the same answers to those questions. Creationism is utterly USELESS as an explanation for what we see in the natural world and only reflects the beliefs of the particular individual answering the questions.

It's a comfort blanket, nothing more.

 

[Ophiolite]

(Edit: I should have read through the rest of the thread first, I see other members have responded to this gem more succinctly than me).

This made me laugh, "Creationism doesn't change" indeed. Does it occur to you that it's so vague as to be meaningless? You can't even get your story straight.

How long is a creation "day"? A day? A thousand years? A geological era? What is a kind? A species? Genus? Family? Order? How do you explain the fossil record? Dinosaurs? Where did the flood waters come from and go? What were neanderthals? What is the physical limit of adaptation that prevents a change of kind? Etc, I could go on and on.

I doubt that there are two creationists in the US that would give the same answers to those questions. Creationism is utterly USELESS as an explanation for what we see in the natural world and only reflects the beliefs of the particular individual answering the questions.

It's a comfort blanket, nothing more.

It seemed pretty succinct to me Jimmy.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I think the tangent had to do with longevity, health and fitness.

Which is strange, since the point being discussed was how the spine of homo sapiens isn't an optimal design for bipedalism.

 

[omega2xx]

Those are observations / facts.
To qualify as evidence, you need an explanatory framework where you can fit those facts in in such a way that they become supportive of that framework.

You know that right? Because it sounds like you don't.

That is basically what I said, and none in this discussion has provided an explanatory framework.

Evolution would be falsified, if that were to happen.

Evolution preaches all life forms, animal and plant, originated from the same source. That means that at some point the offspring of that source became something other that what the source was. Do you really not understand that evolution teaches that what was not a dog, became a dog and later it became something other than a dog?

Google "observed speciation".

Yes what is called speciation has been observed, but the result was impotency, not a change of species. Not only that, in the observation of salamanders some could still produce kids. Not only that, there is no way anyone can observe all the populations of salamanders. They really don't have all the facts they need.

This is also false. The majority of mutations are neutral.
Some are harmfull and some are beneficial.
Also: neutral / harmfull / beneficial with respect to fitness.

Even if you are right, and you may be. mutations are not a mechanism for a change of species. You ask for an explanatory framework, but you have not offered one for mutations causing a change of species. The usual explanation is "many small changes over long periods of time.So give me an explanatory framework how time can change proven genetic principles. Give me one example of a small change that resulted in a change of the species.

Yes, actually, it does help to understand a few things.

For example, it became extra clear that you have no idea what you are talking about and that you wouldn't recognise smoking gun evidence in support of evolution, if it came up and hit you in the face. Because you have no clue what evolution is all about.

Just the opposite. I reject evolution because I do understand it and know it is scientifically impossible. You presenting pictures as evidence shows you don't have a clue ab out what constitutes scientific evidence. Pictures certainly don't qualify as an explanatory framework

When you say things like "you never saw a dog produce anything other then a dog", then we instantly know that you don't understand the first thing about evolution.

Since evolution preaches common descent, it is you who does not understand the first thing about what evolution says.

Obviously, if you don't even understand the basics of the process you are demanding supporting evidence for, you won't be recognizing that evidence for what it is, when presented.

Anyone who presents pictures for evidence of evolution needs a course on what condtitues real scientific evidence.

Couple that with an a priori religious belief that you have already decided upon before even asking the question.......

When you evos have no real answers you try o blame it on my religion. FYI I rejected evolution as a teenager. I became a Christian at age 45. So how do you explain that? You can't.

And then we can conclude that wasting time on your request is just that: wasting time.

You finally got something right. Have a + day.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The debate has been judged, with evidence.

HInt; you are not on the winning side.

I'm not on the majority side (I'm comfortable with that).

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Of course creationism changes. Just look at the sheer number of variations on creationist beliefs there are, not to mention shifting views within those beliefs. If anything creationist thought is far more diverse than anything you'll find in the scientific realm.

That's like saying there are 30,000 denominations of Christianity, but if you attend each one you'll hear pretty much the same sermon.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Which is strange, since the point being discussed was how the spine of homo sapiens isn't an optimal design for bipedalism.

I don't think that point was actually made. There is a vast difference between ongoing back 'problems' and temporary back 'aches'. There are also other causes of back 'pain'. I am suffering it right now (annoyed really) due to some meds I'm taking.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yes what is called speciation has been observed, but the result was impotency, not a change of species.

You really have no sense of irony, do you?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You presumably believe that the universe, as we observe it, is consistent with the theory of creationism, and that therefore it is inconsistent with the theory of evolution. A universe that was consistent with evolution would be different from the universe that we observe. So, if evolution was true, in what ways do you think the universe would be different? Would cats give birth to dogs, or would ducklings hatch out of swan's eggs, or would Japanese parents give birth to Nigerian children?

Would meteorites and terrestrial, lunar and Martian rocks yield radiometric ages of hundreds or thousands of millions of years, rather than merely thousands of years, or would the succession of sedimentary rocks be tens of kilometres thick, rather than only a few tens of metres thick? (Sorry, meteorites and rocks do yield radiometric ages of hundreds or thousands of millions of years, and the sedimentary successions are tens of kilometres thick.)

To summarise, if it is possible to choose between theories of creationism and evolution, the theories must make different predictions. So what predictions does evolutionary theory make that are inconsistent with observations?

Finally, it is not possible to prove that the universe was not created by a god. All that can be proved is that the theory of young earth creationism based on the book of Genesis is false.

I'm an OEC, Gap Theorist.

 

[Shemjaza]

That's like saying there are 30,000 denominations of Christianity, but if you attend each one you'll hear pretty much the same sermon.

10000 years; 6000 years; 4 billion years with desolation; one Earth; two Earths; the laws of physics suddenly changed at a spiritual split at the age of Peleg; Adam was a normal human; Adam was 20 feet tall; Adam had layers of DNA with all the variation of humanity inside;

No, Creationism is not a uniform endeavor.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I have to concede that I am coming to realise that your ignorance is genuine. You really do not get what is moderately straightforward to those of us who have studied the matter and largely understood it.

Your comments reveal that not only don't you understand evolutionary theory, you really don't understand the scientific method, or the nature of scientists. I'm saying this, not as an attack on you, but as belated recognition that - given your ignorance in these matters - it is not really surprising that you find it impossible to accept the findings.

Of course most research papers deal with the minutiae. I am bemused that you are surprised by this and disappointed you assign an ulterior motive to the practice. The broad character of evolution is well established. There is no need to publish papers merely to repeat what is already known.

Researchers are, for the most part, concerned with how the details of evolution work out in specific species, or environments, or in regard to particular tissues, or specific behaviours, or specific metabolisms, or specific genes. So, naturally, they are dealing with the minutiae.

Most papers also, in their conclusion, set those minutiae in a slightly wider context. Periodically a review paper will consider such a wider context and pull together the recent work, commenting on current consensus and remaining issues. And, once in a while, a deeper far reaching idea will emerge and be thrown into the arena for consideration, attack and eventual success or dismemberment.

If you want an overview, there are hundreds of text books and popular science books looking at the forest, all based upon the minutiae that so befuddle you.

You suggest the focus on minutiae is to deflect attention from the overview to the details, so that we ignore the overview. That is a ridiculous idea. Do you really think thousands of researchers are deliberately writing about the minutiae because they care one jot about the bizarre views of a minority group of Christians? They are concerned with important matters, not trivia!

I'm not arguing about the science per se, but the conclusions of science. Within those 'scientific' papers are those 'mini-miracles' (the assumptions) that hold the whole thing together.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

10000 years; 6000 years; 4 billion years with desolation; one Earth; two Earths; the laws of physics suddenly changed at a spiritual split at the age of Peleg; Adam was a normal human; Adam was 20 feet tall; Adam had layers of DNA with all the variation of humanity inside;

No, Creationism is not a uniform endeavor.

Creation is the uniform factor.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

(Edit: I should have read through the rest of the thread first, I see other members have responded to this gem more succinctly than me).

This made me laugh, "Creationism doesn't change" indeed. Does it occur to you that it's so vague as to be meaningless? You can't even get your story straight.

How long is a creation "day"? A day? A thousand years? A geological era? What is a kind? A species? Genus? Family? Order? How do you explain the fossil record? Dinosaurs? Where did the flood waters come from and go? What were neanderthals? What is the physical limit of adaptation that prevents a change of kind? Etc, I could go on and on.

I doubt that there are two creationists in the US that would give the same answers to those questions. Creationism is utterly USELESS as an explanation for what we see in the natural world and only reflects the beliefs of the particular individual answering the questions.

It's a comfort blanket, nothing more.

Supernatural creation is the uniform belief just as evolution is the uniform belief of science, even though there are differences of opinion there as well.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I don't think that point was actually made. There is a vast difference between ongoing back 'problems' and temporary back 'aches'.

The point was, that a lot of the "aches" are a symptom of the underlying "(design) problem".