Is your creation or evolution perspective infallibly correct?

ReverendDG · Sep 27, 2006

AV1611VET said:
Maybe yours was --- but God's line wasn't.

what does that have to do with it? i'm talking about the kjv and the vulgate it was translated from. if you want i can show that both how the they were both effected by christian thought, changing the meaning of the words they used. basicly that the kjv is a terrible translation. it is far from being a good translation, even worse for making things up that didn't happen
but of course i doubt you will listen to this, since by your sig alone, i know you don't care to hear anything about why your translation might be faulty. because it helps shore up your beliefs, even if, what was written isn't even translated right

VinceBlaze · Sep 28, 2006

Chalnoth said:
And the evidence says that the Earth wasn't always here, and thus life wasn't always here. It also says that the universe as we experience it wasn't always here, so there is no real possibility of any sort of "infinitely eternal" universe.

What specific evidence are you referring to?

This direction is driven by speciation: once a population has split into two separated populations for long enough, those two populations will forever after follow separate evolutionary paths.

I believe in speciation. I just don't believe that we can track it very well over the long term.

VinceBlaze · Sep 28, 2006

Grummpy said:
VinceBlaze

We may not be able to see the transition(split) in humans, but there are many such occurances happening today. One such occurance is the horse and the donkey.

Grumpy

Okay, that's nice. This is something which is repeatedly observable. I'm just saying that it's much more difficult to track particular lines of speciation that may have occured millennia (or longer) ago.

TheBear · Sep 28, 2006

Tomk80 · Sep 28, 2006

VinceBlaze said:
Okay, that's nice. This is something which is repeatedly observable. I'm just saying that it's much more difficult to track particular lines of speciation that may have occured millennia (or longer) ago.

Sure, but that doesn't mean we cannot draw sound conclusions about them.

VinceBlaze · Sep 28, 2006

Skaloop said:
Micro- is a small amount of change; having a slightly longer neck, for example. Macro- is a cumulation of small changes resulting in a large change, such as complete speciation.

Okay, thank you. That's very informative.

They are inaccurate terms because macro- is merely many many occurences of micro-. The distinction between them is generally a Creationist point to allow themselves to admit the existence of variation, which is undeniable, while making an arbitrary distinction between that and its cumulative effects. It's akin to admitting that grains of sand exists, but there can not possibly be any beaches.

Just for the record, I am not a creationist. Such would constitute a strawman argument. Nor am I arguing against longterm speciation, because I very much believe in it. Rather, my argument has been that longterm speciation is not repeatedly observable.

You have been misinformed. There is much within science that is not directly observable or repeatable.

Okay. One of the posters was not willing to accept evidence which was not repeatedly observable as scientific.

VinceBlaze · Sep 28, 2006

AnEmpiricalAgnostic said:
As far as I can tell macro evolution isnt proposed to use any other mechanisms than micro evolution so what is the real difference? Its like saying that 1+1=2 is reasonable because we can observe that directly using apples while refusing to believe that continuing to add one will ever reach a number like one trillion.

Strawman argument. I haven't argued against the existence of longterm speciation. Rather, I've argued that longterm speciation is not repeatedly observable.

VinceBlaze · Sep 28, 2006

Skaloop said:
Which have nothing to do with evolution.

No? It seems to me that the topics are quite heavily interrelated.

To dust off an oldie, proof is for mathematics and alcohol, not science.

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what this means.

You are using the layman's version of theory when the scientific one is more applicable. Theories within science are not just semi-informed guesses; they are highly supported and predictive explanations of known processes.

No, actually you're assuming. I am, in fact, using the scientific version of the word 'theory'. Again, I see another strawman argument being used.

Skaloop · Sep 28, 2006

VinceBlaze said:
Nor am I arguing against longterm speciation, because I very much believe in it. Rather, my argument has been that longterm speciation is not repeatedly observable.

Why do you accept that long-term speciation exists? If it's not repeatedly observable, you must base that acceptance on something else, such as indirect evidence. So something being repeatedly observable is clearly not a requirement for science.

VinceBlaze · Sep 28, 2006

rmwilliamsll said:
If the process is not directly and repeatedly observed, then we are only theorizing about it.

This poster is using the word "theorizing" in the manner of "speculating" or "conjecturing" not in the scientific definition of creating theories.

No, I am using the scientific definition of the word 'theorizing'. You're setting up a feeble strawman argument. Please don't project.

And he is offering two criteria for this important task: reproducibility and direct observation.

No, actually another poster had offered this to me earlier in this thread. To which i drew attention. But I had not originally offered this myself. You're wresting my statements out of context, because you've not followed the original context of the thread.

You are welcome to reference posts 28 and 45 for proper context.

VinceBlaze · Sep 28, 2006

Tomk80 said:
the big bang could be a creation event,

A theoretical big bang is nothing other than a proposed creation event. Albeit, one I don't believe in, insofar as I am not a creationist.

You seem to draw some kind of parallel between science and atheism which is not there.

I've never mentioned atheism. I'm not sure where you're getting this. I mentioned creation and a big bang.

And that is a bad thing?

No. Did I say that it was?

Indirect evidence points to one conclusion and away from another.

I interpret reliance on indirect evidence as little more than chain reasoning.

For example, when choosing between the big bang and an eternally existing universe, the cosmic background radiation points towards big bang and away from an eternal universe.

Where did you get this idea? I fail to see a concrete interrelation.

The more indirect evidence we discover, the more certain our conclusion becomes.

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree here. The more indirect evidence that we rely on, the more wild and departed we become from concrete reality.

Skaloop · Sep 28, 2006

VinceBlaze said:
No? It seems to me that the topics are quite heavily interrelated.

Not at all. The Big Bang deals with the origins of the universe. That has nothing to do with life, let alone evolution. The formation of life also has nothing to do with evolution since evolution deals with how life changes, not how it started.

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what this means.

It means that science does not offer absolute proof of anything. There is always the possibility of an exception or a different explanation, no matter how miniscule that possibility is. Gravity has not been proven. Germ theory has not been proven. Proof is only a valid expectation when dealing with mathematics and alcohol content.

No, actually you're assuming. I am, in fact, using the scientific version of the word 'theory'. Again, I see another strawman argument being used.

When one says "only theorizing" as you did, the implication is that a theory is a weak explanation. This is far from the truth, especially in the case of evolution. How exactly do you define "theory" scientifically? Also, when we speak of gravity, are we also "only theorizing?"

TeddyKGB · Sep 28, 2006

VinceBlaze said:
No, I am using the scientific definition of the word 'theorizing'. You're setting up a feeble strawman argument. Please don't project.

"Theorizing" does not, in a scientific context, exclude observation and examination. It is, therefore, not proper scientific usage to place theorizing in opposition to observing and examining.

Tomk80 · Sep 28, 2006

VinceBlaze said:
A theoretical big bang is nothing other than a proposed creation event. Albeit, one I don't believe in, insofar as I am not a creationist.

But creation usually refers to a creative action by a higher 'being'. By metioning them like you did (big bang or creation event), you juxtaposed them against each other. Hence my later comment on atheism.

I've never mentioned atheism. I'm not sure where you're getting this. I mentioned creation and a big bang.

See above.

No. Did I say that it was?

You imply that something has to be 'proven' to be able to make a valid judgement on it. This is not the case.

I interpret reliance on indirect evidence as little more than chain reasoning.

And why would chain reasoning not be valid and not lead to strong conclusions? If all the connections are good, the chain is strong.

Where did you get this idea? I fail to see a concrete interrelation.

Què?

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree here. The more indirect evidence that we rely on, the more wild and departed we become from concrete reality.

Not if all independant lines of indirect evidence point the same way. The more lines of evidence (direct or indirect) you have the point to one conclusion, the less likely the other conclusions are going to be, because they have to explain all the same lines of evidence.

AnEmpiricalAgnostic · Sep 28, 2006

VinceBlaze said:
Strawman argument. I haven't argued against the existence of longterm speciation. Rather, I've argued that longterm speciation is not repeatedly observable.

Why do you qualify speciation by placing long term in front of it? It makes as little sense as sticking macro in front of evolution. Please explain to me the exact difference between short term speciation and long term speciation. If you fall back to the we havent observed X then please explain to me why its accepted that some islands were formed by volcano even though we never observed it. How do we know how black holes are made if weve never directly observed it? How do we know how our planet formed? How do we know a star once exploded in the place we now live?

If you can never conclude anything from lines of evidence other than direct observation then so much of our knowledge would have to be thrown away. In fact, direct observation isnt even as good as youre making it out to be. Direct observation has led to many false ideas over the ages. The earth isnt flat, isnt the center of the universe, and isnt fixed to name a few.

If you take the time to actually investigate the evidence that supports the TofE youll find much more than mere observation. You may want to look at ERVs to start.

VinceBlaze · Sep 29, 2006

TheBear said:
No.

Thank you.

VinceBlaze · Sep 29, 2006

Tomk80 said:
Sure, but that doesn't mean we cannot draw sound conclusions about them.

Certainly we are free to draw any conclusions that we like, whether sound or not.

VinceBlaze · Sep 29, 2006

Skaloop said:
Why do you accept that long-term speciation exists?

I find it likely that longterm speciation exists, because shortterm speciation can be tracked.

If it's not repeatedly observable, you must base that acceptance on something else, such as indirect evidence.

Correct. But it rests within the realm of theory.

So something being repeatedly observable is clearly not a requirement for science.

Not in my perspective, but someone else had first presented the notion, to which I had responded by drawing attention to it.

Chalnoth · Sep 29, 2006

VinceBlaze said:
A theoretical big bang is nothing other than a proposed creation event. Albeit, one I don't believe in, insofar as I am not a creationist.

The big bang is not a proposed creation event. It's a scientific theory with multiple independent lines of supporting evidence and little possibility of any dramatically opposed theory.

VinceBlaze said:
I interpret reliance on indirect evidence as little more than chain reasoning.

And what do you consider to be indirect evidence? By some measure, all scientific evidence is indirect. One cannot, for example, ever see the gravitational field itself. One can only see how gravity affects things, including light and massive objects.

TheBear · Sep 29, 2006

VinceBlaze said:
Thank you.

No problem.

Is your creation or evolution perspective infallibly correct?

Defeater of Dad and AV1611VET

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

NON-WOKED

Titleless

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion

A dude playin' a dude disgused as another dude

Titleless

Agnostic by Fact, Atheist by Epiphany

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Contributor

NON-WOKED

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency