My Official Evolutionary Position

[Blue2836]

I didn't say anything about the bible not being true. Why did you jump to that assumption?



I didn't say anything about not believing parts of the bible. Why did you jump to that assumption?




I did not indicate any disbelief in the role of the Holy Spirit of God in the inspiration of scripture. Why did you jump to that assumption?

What I did indicate was skepticism that a literal reading of the early chapters of Genesis is a correct reading. This does not imply that the scriptural passages are untrue, that I don't believe them or that I deny their inspiration. It simply means that I doubt they are or ever were intended to be read by modern criteria of literal history. Could you focus on that question instead of issues I did not raise?

I'm sorry if I offended you but my point is that if scripture says "In the beginning, God created ..." and details the steps which our Lord took in making all things, how can you say that it happened any other way than that? If God is who he is, why could it not have happened exactly the way it says? It just seems to me that those of us who deny the genesis account of creation as absolute literal truth, are actually denying the worthiness of scripture. Again, I'm not trying to offend you. It's just kind of hard to explain this position without being offensive.

Well, not necessarily slow. Small changes yes, but some sequences of changes could be much more rapid than others. That is one of the basic insights of punctuated equilibrium.

Well, to me, punctuated equilibrium is nothing more than an acknowledgement that the required missing steps aren't there. In other words, since we can't find the millions of years of slight variation that are supposed to be there according to Darwinian evolution, then it must have happened very rapidly.

Correct. There really is no such thing as a "living fossil". Modern species which look very much like ancient species are not identical to their ancestors. They have evolved too. Modern bacteria have as much of an evolutionary pedigree as modern elephants. It is incorrect to think that they have not evolved.

Well, you're just saying what I'm saying then - You have to take it on faith that evolution between species happened. To me, that's ridiculous.

I think you misunderstand the relationship between the fossil record and the theory of evolution. Fossils don't "prove" evolution. Evolution explains the fossil record.

That is exactly my point. The fossils do not prove evolution. It is creative story telling based upon similarities that are equated with relationship.

How do you account for fossils without evolution? In particular, how do you account for fossils which strongly resemble current species without evolution? How do you account for the fact that such fossils appear in the most recent geological strata while older geological strata have very different species? How do you account for fossil species which are difficult to classify because the mix of characteristics seems to suggest that they belong equally well in two different categories? Especially when those categories are as far apart as a family or order?

Well, it would depend particularly on exactly which species you are talking about. Additionally, if there is more than one explanation then the theory is no more proved than it was before. Also, you must realize that our taxonomy is not a perfectly exact science, but rather a man-made categorization of what we see.

Evolution offers a solid explanation for why fossils exist in the first place, and why the patterns of similarities and differences are distributed in the fossil record the way they are. And it does so, not just in general, but in detail. So, another thing evolution does is make clear predictions of the sort of fossils one will or will not find and where in the geologic strata they will be found. And so far, each and every one of these predictions has proven true.

Can you suggest any other theory which explains the fossil record so well?

Firstly, each and every prediction has not been true. I'm sure that you can concede that archaeologists have made mistakes in their predictions and have been surprised on more than one occasion by their finds. Secondly, I'm not one hundred percent sure of this but aren't 95% of all creatures extinct? If that's true, that would clearly explain the tremendous variation that was once there and now is no more.

Could you please define "evolutionary fossils" , "complete fossils" and "modern fossils"? I don't know what you are trying to say here.

An evolutionary fossil would be an unquestionable series of fossils clearly demonstrating the process of one species crossing over to another that could not be attributed to variation or any other circumstance. When I said complete and modern I was referring to young fossils that demonstrate the as-of-now most advanced evolutionary stage in each species. i.e. animals alive today.

Why? Penguins have wings. Why should there be any record of them losing wings when they haven't?

Evolutionists often claim that Penguins used to be normal flying birds that evolved and slowly lost their ability to fly via evolution.

But whales did not grow legs, they lost them.

That's strange, I've often heard that whales grew legs and learned to walk on land becoming land creatures. In any event, ok, show me whales with fully formed legs before they lost them.

Why should fossils be abundant? We have no reason to believe fossils should be abundant. Consider that in the last 150 years we have seen many, many extinctions or near extinctions often caused by human activity. Among these were the passenger pigeon, the plains bison, and the Atlantic cod. Each of these used to be well-know for their abundance. Early Europeans speak of catching cod by simply letting down buckets into the water. Flocks of passenger pigeons used to darken the whole sky, they were so numerous. The great bison herds used to cover the whole prairie from horizon to horizon for 3-4 days as they migrated. How many skeletal remains do we have of these creatures? What ratio of them became fossils? Why should we assume any greater ratio for species of the past?

Are you aware that there are whole phyla for which we have no fossil record at all? Then there are the simple unicellular creatures known as Archea. Biologists believe they are at least as old if not older than Bacteria. But while we have fossil bacteria over 3 billion years old, not a single fossil of an Archaean has been found.

Unless you can give a reason why fossils should be more abundant than they are, I have to consider this a pseudo-problem.

I didn't say that fossils should be abundant. I said that, within our fossil record (1 billion or so fossils), transitional fossils should be abundant.

In the first place you are incorrect. Mutations don't guide evolution. Natural selection does. Mutations provide options. But which option is acted on is a matter of selection.

Without mutations your evolution couldn't take place. This is just semantics. Obviously, mutations would have to be acted upon in a beneficial manner by natural selection but that doesn't change the point.

Why do you say there is no room for God in the process? It seems to me there is ample room for God in both aspects of evolution: mutations and natural selection.

There is no room for God in a process that requires random, chance mutations that give the species a benefit. I agree that natural selection does happen but to say that all life is a result of this runs contrary to the God of the bible that works all things out for his purpose. The Christian God is deeply involved in his creation. There is no indication in scripture that The Lord kick-started it all and left it to its own devices.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

That's strange, I've often heard that whales grew legs and learned to walk on land becoming land creatures.

Not from any competent mainstream scientist, you haven't.

In any event, ok, show me whales with fully formed legs before they lost them.

Check my avatar.

 

[gluadys]

I'm sorry if I offended you but my point is that if scripture says "In the beginning, God created ..." and details the steps which our Lord took in making all things, how can you say that it happened any other way than that? If God is who he is, why could it not have happened exactly the way it says?

Is scripture that clear on the details? Consider the origin of plant life in scripture. What it says is that plant life occurred when God said "Let the earth bring forth vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it."

Now since God said "Let the earth bring forth..." what must happen next is the response of the earth. What did the earth do and how did it do this?

It is also clear that the earth brought forth more sorts of vegetation than the bible names, for it only names plants with seeds and plants with fruit with the seed in the fruit.

This would exclude all aquatic plants such as algae and kelps for none of them have seeds. It would also exclude such terrestrial plants as mosses and ferns. They don't have seeds either. It would even exclude strawberries, for although they are a fruit and have seeds, their seeds are not in the fruit, they are on the fruit.

Now it would be silly to say that the earth disobeyed God in making more kinds of plants than are listed in Genesis. No one expects the list was exhaustive.

But I certainly don't see any detail given on the origin of specific plants. Would not evolution be one possible way the earth could obey God and bring forth all the different kinds of plants?

If so, how would this deny God as their creator? Is it not simply God delegating to the earth the production of vegetation, in much the same way as God delegated the production of scripture to human authors?

Do we have to assume that as the earth carried out its God-ordained task that God did not oversee its work?

Again, I'm not trying to offend you. It's just kind of hard to explain this position without being offensive.

Point taken.

What I was pointing out is that all your assumptions are incorrect. TEs like myself do not believe only part of the bible, nor do we believe the bible is not true, nor do we discount divine inspiration. We DO believe all these things and still believe the biblical accounts are compatible with the scientific account of evolution.

Where we differ with a literalist is that we believe the chronology of Genesis 1 is a symbolic chronology, not a historical chronology.

Well, to me, punctuated equilibrium is nothing more than an acknowledgement that the required missing steps aren't there. In other words, since we can't find the millions of years of slight variation that are supposed to be there according to Darwinian evolution, then it must have happened very rapidly.

Well, that is an incorrect understanding. Punctuated equilibrium does not say the steps are/were not there. It does say that, in many cases, the steps were not preserved in the fossil record because they happened too quickly. But it also says that we may be lucky enough to find a rapid transitional sequence if we hit on the right stratum in the right place. In fact, it was his work on the Burgess Shale, where he did find such sequences in rapid succession, that led Gould to the thesis. His partner in promoting PE also found the same thing with trilobites (his specialty). He was able to find, in one place, a complete transition from one trilobite species to another, where everywhere else the more recent species just "suddenly" replaced the older species without any apparent intermediates. Since Gould and Eldredge published their findings, other paleontologists have reported similar findings.

Well, you're just saying what I'm saying then - You have to take it on faith that evolution between species happened. To me, that's ridiculous.

I think we need to dig a little deeper into what you mean by "evolution between species". I hope you realize that evolution says that no modern species evolved from another modern species. All modern species evolved from earlier species.* What evolution says is that two or more modern species may have evolved from the same earlier species.

Do you really have a problem with that?

That is exactly my point. The fossils do not prove evolution. It is creative story telling based upon similarities that are equated with relationship.

Are you saying that similarity is never a clue to relationships? Why do we rely, then, on similarities in DNA to indicate paternity? Why do we examine children for an indication of similarity to their siblings, parents, grandparents, etc. Why do we speak of little Johnny having his mother's eyes, his father's chin, his grandpa's nose, etc.

We also need to note that scientists also agree that not every similarity indicates relationship. There are ways to discriminate between similarities due to adaptation to similar conditions (analogous similarities) and similarities based on inheritance (homologous similarities). Only the latter are used as a key to relationships.

So the "creative storytelling" has a base in evidence of homologous similarities.

Well, it would depend particularly on exactly which species you are talking about. Additionally, if there is more than one explanation then the theory is no more proved than it was before. Also, you must realize that our taxonomy is not a perfectly exact science, but rather a man-made categorization of what we see.

Indeed, it would. And this is one of my beefs with creationist sites like AiG. They never present a detailed picture of how a global flood would account for the specific arrangement of specific species in the fossil record. They rely on general concepts such as hydrological or biome sorting that sound good in the abstract, but simply do not fit the actual fossil record.

They do not explain, for example, such a simple thing as ferns being found in all strata from the Carboniferous to the present while flowering plant remains are found only in the Cretaceous to the present. And to get to even finer detail, among flowering plants, grasses are not even found in the Cretaceous, but only from the Eocene to the present.

If all vegetation was created on a single day, why do we not find grasses, other flowering plants, and ferns in all strata from the Cambrian on up? Why are ferns not found in the Cambrian, Silurian, Ordovician and Devonian, but only appear for the first time in the Carboniferous age? Why do we have ferns but no flowering plants all through the Permian, Triassic and Jurassic? Why do have both ferns and flowers, but no grasses in the Cretaceous?

I am not expecting you to answer personally, of course, but if there is truth in the creationist paradigm, these are questions that must be answered, not buried in generalities.

Firstly, each and every prediction has not been true.

Can you give an example?

I'm sure that you can concede that archaeologists have made mistakes in their predictions and have been surprised on more than one occasion by their finds.

I think you mean paleontologists. Archeologists don't study fossils. They study ancient civilizations. Paleontologists study fossils.

Again, I would need an example. Scientists are often surprised by their findings, but that does not necessarily mean the finding violates a prediction.

Secondly, I'm not one hundred percent sure of this but aren't 95% of all creatures extinct? If that's true, that would clearly explain the tremendous variation that was once there and now is no more.

Probably closer to 99%. But I don't see the relationship to variation. Not all 99% lived simultaneously and I think one would be hard-pressed to say there was more variation in one age than another. For example, consider how many varieties of modern life are not found at all in the Cambrian:

no mammals of any kind, nor birds, nor reptiles, nor fish. Also no insects or other terrestrial invertebrates. In short, no terrestrial animals of any kind, and not even any marine vertebrates. Only invertebrate life, and all of that marine life.
no fungi of any kind--no mushrooms, no molds, no yeasts, etc.
no terrestrial plant life of any kind: no trees, grass, herbs, bushes, mosses, etc. Only some marine and possibly some aquatic algae. I am not sure about kelps.

So there is a huge amount of variety that did not exist in the Cambrian. But then there is a huge amount of marine life that did exist in the Cambrian. All sorts of species that no longer exist today. So which age has greater variation?

An evolutionary fossil would be an unquestionable series of fossils clearly demonstrating the process of one species crossing over to another that could not be attributed to variation or any other circumstance.

Well, then you are asking the impossible. Variation always comes about through evolution. So you will have to change your criteria.

Evolutionists often claim that Penguins used to be normal flying birds that evolved and slowly lost their ability to fly via evolution.

But you said loss of wings. Losing the power of flight is not the same as losing wings.

That's strange, I've often heard that whales grew legs and learned to walk on land becoming land creatures. In any event, ok, show me whales with fully formed legs before they lost them.

Well somebody is feeding you a line of bs. I would not trust any source that gave out such incorrect information.

As Karl said, look at his avatar. It is an artist's reconstruction of a whale skeleton that has legs. You will find plenty more if you do a search on the key words "whale evolution"

I didn't say that fossils should be abundant. I said that, within our fossil record (1 billion or so fossils), transitional fossils should be abundant.

Then you need to define "transitional". Using a standard scientific definition, there are lots of transitional fossils. For some reason most creationists sources claim they are not transitional, but I haven't seen a good reason not to consider them transitional.

So, definition needed. What does "transitional" mean? How would you tell whether or not a specific fossil is or is not transitional?

Without mutations your evolution couldn't take place. This is just semantics. Obviously, mutations would have to be acted upon in a beneficial manner by natural selection but that doesn't change the point.

No, it is not just semantics. It is true that without mutations evolution would not occur. But you did not say that mutations happen, you said mutations drive evolution. Drive suggests direction, and mutations do not set a direction for evolution**, they simply make evolution possible. The direction evolution will take is determined by natural selection and other mechanisms which determine which mutations will survive.

There is no room for God in a process that requires random, chance mutations that give the species a benefit.

Why do you make this assumption? I conclude the opposite, that a random process allows divine intervention without the requirement of resorting to super-natural suspension of the natural order every time God chooses to intervene.

From my perspective, randomness is what allows God to be deeply involved in his creation. I emphatically reject the notion that God has left creation to its own devices. And I don't see why this would follow from the fact of randomness.





*I need to qualify that a bit. In the case of short-lived species, both the most recent modern species and the earlier species it evolved from can both exist in the present.

**Mutations can at best block evolution in a certain direction by not providing particular options. e.g. Bacteria cannot evolve resistance if no mutation exists in the population which increases resistance.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

There is no room for God in a process that requires random, chance mutations that give the species a benefit. I agree that natural selection does happen but to say that all life is a result of this runs contrary to the God of the bible that works all things out for his purpose. The Christian God is deeply involved in his creation. There is no indication in scripture that The Lord kick-started it all and left it to its own devices.

i think the easiest way to dispose of this false objection is to compare it to how Christians find mates.

Now, AFAIK, everyone has the feeling that God foreordained that they and their mates met. The feeling of soulmates, the feeling of fits just right is a common and strong one. Does that mean you can point to the places in your life where God moved you to met and date your spouse? or from the outside does it look random? Just because you can run a sociological experiment that shows randomness in human mating habits, or even nonrandomness based on education, income levels, race and social class, doesn't mean that God didn't bring you together, it just means that the question of soul mates is not a scientific one.

.....

 

[Blue2836]

Is scripture that clear on the details? Consider the origin of plant life in scripture. What it says is that plant life occurred when God said "Let the earth bring forth vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it."

Now since God said "Let the earth bring forth..." what must happen next is the response of the earth. What did the earth do and how did it do this?

It is also clear that the earth brought forth more sorts of vegetation than the bible names, for it only names plants with seeds and plants with fruit with the seed in the fruit.

This would exclude all aquatic plants such as algae and kelps for none of them have seeds. It would also exclude such terrestrial plants as mosses and ferns. They don't have seeds either. It would even exclude strawberries, for although they are a fruit and have seeds, their seeds are not in the fruit, they are on the fruit.

Now it would be silly to say that the earth disobeyed God in making more kinds of plants than are listed in Genesis. No one expects the list was exhaustive.

But I certainly don't see any detail given on the origin of specific plants.

I guess what I'm really trying to say is that if the bible says it took six days, it did.

Would not evolution be one possible way the earth could obey God and bring forth all the different kinds of plants?

If so, how would this deny God as their creator? Is it not simply God delegating to the earth the production of vegetation, in much the same way as God delegated the production of scripture to human authors?

Do we have to assume that as the earth carried out its God-ordained task that God did not oversee its work?

Well, evolution requires that natural selection be the guiding force behind all creation. This, to me, runs contrary to scripture. I guess what you are saying is that God made all life slowly evolve from itself. Personally, I don't see enough evidence for that other than the fact that mainstream science is convinced of it, and that is my point.

Point taken.

What I was pointing out is that all your assumptions are incorrect. TEs like myself do not believe only part of the bible, nor do we believe the bible is not true, nor do we discount divine inspiration. We DO believe all these things and still believe the biblical accounts are compatible with the scientific account of evolution.

Where we differ with a literalist is that we believe the chronology of Genesis 1 is a symbolic chronology, not a historical chronology.

Ok, that's where I am differing with you. I believe that if God created the world in millions of years he would have said so. I don't like conceding the literal words of scripture simply because the scientific world has decided that it is foolish. Science doesn't begin to approach the wisdom of God. In fact, man's wisdom is foolishness to him. I believe that attempting to make literal days in the book of genesis mean something other than it states is nothing more than a lack of trust in our own faith vs. the consensus of science.

Well, that is an incorrect understanding. Punctuated equilibrium does not say the steps are/were not there. It does say that, in many cases, the steps were not preserved in the fossil record because they happened too quickly. But it also says that we may be lucky enough to find a rapid transitional sequence if we hit on the right stratum in the right place. In fact, it was his work on the Burgess Shale, where he did find such sequences in rapid succession, that led Gould to the thesis. His partner in promoting PE also found the same thing with trilobites (his specialty). He was able to find, in one place, a complete transition from one trilobite species to another, where everywhere else the more recent species just "suddenly" replaced the older species without any apparent intermediates. Since Gould and Eldredge published their findings, other paleontologists have reported similar findings

.

Again, the interpretations of these finds are open to debate. Evolutionists must rely on tremendous assumptions; specifically, the idea that similarity equates with relationship. Additionally, these "sudden" species replacing others indicate that the intermediates are missing. It's another way of saying exactly what I was saying - PE is a way of inserting something that isn't there. Science has a tendency of inventing theories in order to make up for shortcomings.

I think we need to dig a little deeper into what you mean by "evolution between species". I hope you realize that evolution says that no modern species evolved from another modern species. All modern species evolved from earlier species.* What evolution says is that two or more modern species may have evolved from the same earlier species.

Do you really have a problem with that?

Well, you said that modern species may have evolved from some earlier species. That basically sums up what I'm trying to say - there is no clearly established reliability behind this theory other than the popularity that it currently enjoys in science.

Are you saying that similarity is never a clue to relationships? Why do we rely, then, on similarities in DNA to indicate paternity? Why do we examine children for an indication of similarity to their siblings, parents, grandparents, etc. Why do we speak of little Johnny having his mother's eyes, his father's chin, his grandpa's nose, etc.

I'm not saying that similarity is never a clue to relationships. I'm saying that it does not equate with relationship. In other words, the fact that two items look similar but contain some differences, does not mean that one came from the other. It could just as easily indicate variation. If an evolutionist saw the bones of a tea cup Chiwawa and compared it to those of a great Dane, he would confidently proclaim that one evolved from the other. Obviously he would be badly mistaken. However, evolution encourages that type of ignorance because it discourages all opposition to its logic.

We also need to note that scientists also agree that not every similarity indicates relationship. There are ways to discriminate between similarities due to adaptation to similar conditions (analogous similarities) and similarities based on inheritance (homologous similarities). Only the latter are used as a key to relationships.

Again, evolution between these creatures has to be taken on faith and cannot be proven.

So the "creative storytelling" has a base in evidence of homologous similarities.

I'm not saying that the theories of evolution are ruled out without a doubt. I'm just saying that there is no reason to believe that they are absolutely true since empirical evidence isn't there.

Indeed, it would. And this is one of my beefs with creationist sites like AiG. They never present a detailed picture of how a global flood would account for the specific arrangement of specific species in the fossil record. They rely on general concepts such as hydrological or biome sorting that sound good in the abstract, but simply do not fit the actual fossil record.

I have to check out this AIG that people talk about on this forum. Since I've joined this forum I've seen a lot of references to it. Anyway, so I take it that you don't believe in the flood either?

If all vegetation was created on a single day, why do we not find grasses, other flowering plants, and ferns in all strata from the Cambrian on up? Why are ferns not found in the Cambrian, Silurian, Ordovician and Devonian, but only appear for the first time in the Carboniferous age? Why do we have ferns but no flowering plants all through the Permian, Triassic and Jurassic? Why do have both ferns and flowers, but no grasses in the Cretaceous?

I don't think I want to get into the whole geologic column debate but suffice it to say that there are problems with the theories within this area as well.

Can you give an example?

My argument is one of common sense. You said that they have never been wrong. I'm saying that I am sure that you can concede that they have been wrong.

I think you mean paleontologists. Archeologists don't study fossils. They study ancient civilizations. Paleontologists study fossils.

Yes. You're correct.

Again, I would need an example. Scientists are often surprised by their findings, but that does not necessarily mean the finding violates a prediction.

I don't know, how about Piltdown man, Nebraska man, and Java man to name a few?

Probably closer to 99%. But I don't see the relationship to variation. Not all 99% lived simultaneously and I think one would be hard-pressed to say there was more variation in one age than another.

Well, the fact that 99% of all creatures are extinct can explain why there were so many more varieties of creatures before.

For example, consider how many varieties of modern life are not found at all in the Cambrian: no mammals of any kind, nor birds, nor reptiles, nor fish. Also no insects or other terrestrial invertebrates. In short, no terrestrial animals of any kind, and not even any marine vertebrates. Only invertebrate life, and all of that marine life.
no fungi of any kind--no mushrooms, no molds, no yeasts, etc.
no terrestrial plant life of any kind: no trees, grass, herbs, bushes, mosses, etc. Only some marine and possibly some aquatic algae. I am not sure about kelps.
So there is a huge amount of variety that did not exist in the Cambrian. But then there is a huge amount of marine life that did exist in the Cambrian. All sorts of species that no longer exist today. So which age has greater variation?

I did a very quick search and found this to be wrong. I can't post the external link because I have less than 15 posts, but the article is in the sciencenews org web site and the page is fob1 htm. It shows a vertebrate fish in the cambrian - another surprise for paleontologists. Well, there goes that whole theory.

Well, then you are asking the impossible. Variation always comes about through evolution. So you will have to change your criteria.

To you variation comes about through evolution because of your faith in the theory. In reality, evolution is assumed not truly observed.

But you said loss of wings. Losing the power of flight is not the same as losing wings.

Well somebody is feeding you a line of bs. I would not trust any source that gave out such incorrect information.

Maybe I've been talking to too many amateur evolutionists but I've had people argue that penguins used to be birds with long wings and gradually lost them.

As Karl said, look at his avatar. It is an artist's reconstruction of a whale skeleton that has legs. You will find plenty more if you do a search on the key words "whale evolution"

I did a quick search on the seemingly most popular transitional examples of whales:

Ambulocetus similarities of ear bones equated with relationships to whales when in actuality, they look more like crocodiles.

Basilosaurus - A quick search reveals a quote from evolutionist Barbara J. Stahl "The serpentine form of the body and the peculiar serrated cheek teeth make it plain that these archaeocetes could not possibly have been ancestral to any of the modern whales." Is she right? I don't know. The point is that experts disagree, therefore, the interpretation is again debatable.

Then you need to define "transitional". Using a standard scientific definition, there are lots of transitional fossils. For some reason most creationists sources claim they are not transitional, but I haven't seen a good reason not to consider them transitional.

So, definition needed. What does "transitional" mean? How would you tell whether or not a specific fossil is or is not transitional?

You're really missing my entire point. I'm not saying that fossils can't be described as being transitional by people. I'm saying that the descriptions themselves are not concrete evidence of an actual transition. They're about as good as your willingness to accept the story. There is no actual proof of a transition without accepting certain shortcomings as truth.

No, it is not just semantics. It is true that without mutations evolution would not occur. But you did not say that mutations happen, you said mutations drive evolution. Drive suggests direction, and mutations do not set a direction for evolution**, they simply make evolution possible. The direction evolution will take is determined by natural selection and other mechanisms which determine which mutations will survive.

I meant that the idea of beneficial mutations drives the entire theory of evolution. Without mutation, there is no evolution.

Why do you make this assumption? I conclude the opposite, that a random process allows divine intervention without the requirement of resorting to super-natural suspension of the natural order every time God chooses to intervene.

Because requiring random, chance processes is implying that God is not in direct control. That is not the God of scripture.

From my perspective, randomness is what allows God to be deeply involved in his creation. I emphatically reject the notion that God has left creation to its own devices. And I don't see why this would follow from the fact of randomness.

Why even believe in God if you think that all of this life formed by chance mutations? I just don't get it. If you are a Christian who believes in evolution, why not say that God caused all mutations instead?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Because requiring random, chance processes is implying that God is not in direct control. That is not the God of scripture.


Why even believe in God if you think that all of this life formed by chance mutations? I just don't get it. If you are a Christian who believes in evolution, why not say that God caused all mutations instead?

why confuse the two spheres of theology and science?
science does not talk about God, nor the supernatural, by mutual consent. Is God in control? that is a theological not a scientific proposition, it is not accessible via the tools of science.

a scientific statement that mutations are random says absolutely nothing about God in control or not in control. silence. as it should be.
science says nothing about human values, about ethics, to believe it does is the naturalist fallacy. scientists talk about values and ethics but when they do so they are talking from their world view not their science, no matter if they try to justify their statements with science sounding words and ideas, it is still metaphysics not science. get over it. religion and science are different spheres, touching-yes, perhaps interpenetrating even, but distinguishable and differentiable.

a stand like providental evolution does claim that God is in firm control of all that happens, but that statement is not scientific, it is theological.
you do nothing but confuse and irritate people when you confuse and conflate the two domains.


....

 

[Blue2836]

why confuse the two spheres of theology and science?
science does not talk about God, nor the supernatural, by mutual consent. Is God in control? that is a theological not a scientific proposition, it is not accessible via the tools of science.

a scientific statement that mutations are random says absolutely nothing about God in control or not in control. silence. as it should be.
science says nothing about human values, about ethics, to believe it does is the naturalist fallacy. scientists talk about values and ethics but when they do so they are talking from their world view not their science, no matter if they try to justify their statements with science sounding words and ideas, it is still metaphysics not science. get over it. religion and science are different spheres, touching-yes, perhaps interpenetrating even, but distinguishable and differentiable.

a stand like providental evolution does claim that God is in firm control of all that happens, but that statement is not scientific, it is theological.
you do nothing but confuse and irritate people when you confuse and conflate the two domains.

....

I'm new to this forum but isn't this a Christian forum? When I'm discussing these things with non-believers I do not bring faith into the discussion. But I assume I'm talking to Christians here, no? I thought we were discussing origins from a Christian perspective.

 

[The Lady Kate]

I'm new to this forum but isn't this a Christian forum? When I'm discussing these things with non-believers I do not bring faith into the discussion. But I assume I'm talking to Christians here, no? I thought we were discussing origins from a Christian perspective.

You are. You're discussing origins from a Christian perspective with other Christians...Most of whom see nothing theologically wrong with God allowing a little randomness into the scientific picture.

 

[Knowledge3]

Several years ago I had evolution foisted on me by several opposing worldviews. As a result it snowballed in to my being a creationist simply because I defended my worldview with biblical backing.No has been able to convince me or cause me to form a conflicting opinion.It took me several years get to this point.

My theology is pretty deep and profound when comes to the nature of our world ,most of the time I usually hide my theology and just dicuss science. To this day, I choose to hold no position when it comes down to it. Someone mentioned discussing a belief about God in science was unbiblical, that is usually not the case; that very notion stems from being unsure about what position you hold. Coming from vast experience, you will often try to explain your idea in the most rational and logical way; yet people will develop complete opposite answers in response.

I will soon abandon the the C/E debate and go my own ways, I don't believe we can hold an official postion because we ourselves are subject to the same laws of the universe. All this I had been doing was in faith. I wish anyone who wants to venture and try their faith the best of luck..

I find the cross of Christ a much more profound and vast area to focus on than the actual universe itself. Before I go, I will show how this single verse binds all of the material universe with the unknown spiritual.

Hebrews 2.8
In putting everything under him,God left nothing at present that is not subject to him. Yet a present we do not see everything subject to him.


K3

 

[neverforsaken]

That's strange, I've often heard that whales grew legs and learned to walk on land becoming land creatures.

actually, wasnt it prehistoric bears who evolved into whales?

 

[gluadys]

I guess what I'm really trying to say is that if the bible says it took six days, it did.

Ok. That's a different bone of contention.

Well, evolution requires that natural selection be the guiding force behind all creation.

No, not at all. Natural selection guides evolution, not creation. And it should not even be described as a force. It is more a filter than a force.

I guess what you are saying is that God made all life slowly evolve from itself. Personally, I don't see enough evidence for that other than the fact that mainstream science is convinced of it, and that is my point.

Do you really think the majority of scientists were convinced without there being strong evidence in its favour? Even the majority of scientists who believe in God? What you need to consider is what evidence convinced the scientists and why. I agree, you haven't seen enough evidence yet. There is still plenty more to see.

Ok, that's where I am differing with you. I believe that if God created the world in millions of years he would have said so. I don't like conceding the literal words of scripture simply because the scientific world has decided that it is foolish. Science doesn't begin to approach the wisdom of God. In fact, man's wisdom is foolishness to him. I believe that attempting to make literal days in the book of genesis mean something other than it states is nothing more than a lack of trust in our own faith vs. the consensus of science.

Ok, I don't know where to begin with this because there is so much to comment on that it would take us on six different roads, none of them pertinent to the OP. I would just say that literal days need not be historical days. I agree the author of Genesis 1 meant ordinary solar days and nothing else. I would not agree he necessarily intended them to be an accurate chronology.

Again, the interpretations of these finds are open to debate.

And that is why there was a huge debate in the scientific community about this concept. But most have agreed that the evidence supports it in some cases while in others it does not apply.

Evolutionists must rely on tremendous assumptions;

That may depend on whether they are scientists or not. Science does not rely on assumptions except for some very high-level assumptions without which science could not be done:
e.g. there is a real world outside of our heads. we are not just dreaming it all up.
we can find out what is true about this real world by using our senses and our reasoning capacities.

Outside of these high-level assumptions, science relies on evidence and logical deductions from the evidence.

specifically, the idea that similarity equates with relationship.

Similarity does not equate with relationship and science has never said otherwise. However, since biological organisms pass their genes to their offspring, it is a forgone conclusion that similar genes will produce similarities, and we can deduce from this that related species will show similarities, due to inheritance. Similarities not related to inheritance do not equate with relationships.

Similarity only equates to relationship when inheritance is the reason for the similarity. But then it definitely equates to relationship.

Additionally, these "sudden" species replacing others indicate that the intermediates are missing.

Except, of course, when they are not missing. How does your objection hold up then?

It's another way of saying exactly what I was saying - PE is a way of inserting something that isn't there. Science has a tendency of inventing theories in order to make up for shortcomings.

Are you saying that Eldredge's trilobites were not there? Or that the Burgess Shale finds were not really there?

Well, you said that modern species may have evolved from some earlier species. That basically sums up what I'm trying to say - there is no clearly established reliability behind this theory other than the popularity that it currently enjoys in science.

No, I didn't say "may" I said:

"All modern species evolved from earlier species."

And you haven't learned enough about the theory or the evidence that supports it to have a valid opinion on its reliability yet.

I'm not saying that similarity is never a clue to relationships. I'm saying that it does not equate with relationship.

So we agree that similarity does not equal relationship. But it can be a clue to relationship, since some similarities are observed to be inherited. That is all science is saying too.

In other words, the fact that two items look similar but contain some differences, does not mean that one came from the other. It could just as easily indicate variation.

Variations are inherited, so they would be an indication of a relationship.

If an evolutionist saw the bones of a tea cup Chiwawa and compared it to those of a great Dane, he would confidently proclaim that one evolved from the other.

No he wouldn't. He would say both evolved from a common ancestor. There is no way a great Dane could evolve from a chihuahua or vice versa.

Again, evolution between these creatures has to be taken on faith and cannot be proven.

Evidence of homology means faith is not required.

I'm not saying that the theories of evolution are ruled out without a doubt. I'm just saying that there is no reason to believe that they are absolutely true since empirical evidence isn't there.

Science is built on empirical evidence. Something is convincing scientists of evolution. If it is not the mountain of empirical evidence, what is it? And if the empirical evidence does not show evolution, what does it show?

Anyway, so I take it that you don't believe in the flood either?

Yes, but not that it was a global flood. A global flood is falsified by geology. Check out some of glen morton's posts to see why.

I don't think I want to get into the whole geologic column debate but suffice it to say that there are problems with the theories within this area as well.

If it was just your personal preference not to get into the evidence in the geologic column, that would be ok. The problem is that no creationist, not even creationist scientists, have ever produced a non-evolutionary explanation of fossil distribution in the geologic column that fits the evidence.

My argument is one of common sense. You said that they have never been wrong. I'm saying that I am sure that you can concede that they have been wrong.

If you are saying that individual scientists can be wrong, sure they can. What I was saying is that no evidence yet has shown the theory of evolution to be wrong. Different matter altogether.

Can the theory of evolution still be wrong? Sure. As soon as evidence is found which it can't possibly explain, even with significant revision.

I don't know, how about Piltdown man, Nebraska man, and Java man to name a few?

None of these are a problem for the theory of evolution. Piltdown man was a hoax, so that does not violate the theory. Nebraska Man was a journalist's pipe dream which was corrected by scientists. So that does not violate the theory of evolution. And Java man was the earliest discovery of a Homo erectus that, far from violating the theory, provides evidence for it.

Well, the fact that 99% of all creatures are extinct can explain why there were so many more varieties of creatures before.

Yes, if all species that have ever lived, were still alive today, we would have a lot more variety than we do. By the same token if all modern and Mesozoic and late Paleozoic species had also been alive in the Cambrian period, there would have been a lot more variety then than there actually was.

I really don't know what point you are trying to make.

I did a very quick search and found this to be wrong. I can't post the external link because I have less than 15 posts, but the article is in the sciencenews org web site and the page is fob1 htm. It shows a vertebrate fish in the cambrian - another surprise for paleontologists. Well, there goes that whole theory.

What whole theory? How does this violate the theory of evolution or any part of it? Did you think that because, until now, no fish fossil had been found in the Cambrian that scientists were predicting that no fish fossil would ever be found in the Cambrian?

No, what the theory says is that the oldest fish fossil cannot predate the existence of its ancestor. So unless you can show that this recent find (which is now the oldest fish fossil known) pre-dates the existence of its ancestor, the theory is not violated.

To you variation comes about through evolution because of your faith in the theory. In reality, evolution is assumed not truly observed.

Yes, variation is truly observed. That is basic genetics. It is a well-studied field of biology and we know the process from beginning to end and have observed it many times. Breeders of both plants and animals and genetic engineers use the scientific observations of how variation occurs in their work.

Maybe I've been talking to too many amateur evolutionists but I've had people argue that penguins used to be birds with long wings and gradually lost them.

Ok, so now the argument is that penguins did not lose their wings, but that their wings became smaller. That is perfectly feasible.

Ambulocetus similarities of ear bones equated with relationships to whales when in actuality, they look more like crocodiles.

No, the ear bones look like whale earbones. So do many details of the skull.

Basilosaurus - A quick search reveals a quote from evolutionist Barbara J. Stahl "The serpentine form of the body and the peculiar serrated cheek teeth make it plain that these archaeocetes could not possibly have been ancestral to any of the modern whales." Is she right?

She could well be. Not every transitional form has left modern descendants. Basilieus is still a good example of a whale intermediate between terrestrial whale ancestors and modern whales.

You're really missing my entire point. I'm not saying that fossils can't be described as being transitional by people. I'm saying that the descriptions themselves are not concrete evidence of an actual transition. They're about as good as your willingness to accept the story. There is no actual proof of a transition without accepting certain shortcomings as truth.

It sounds to me that you are still asking for the impossible: DNA evidence that identifies a fossil as the direct ancestor of a specific modern species. But fossils don't have DNA.

I think you have also forgotten my entire point. Evolution does not depend on fossils to provide proof or even evidence in its favour. We have enough evidence for evolution that if we had not one single fossil, it is still the most compelling of biological theories. Evolution doesn't need fossils. But fossils do need evolution. Nothing else explains fossils and the fossil record.

I meant that the idea of beneficial mutations drives the entire theory of evolution. Without mutation, there is no evolution.

But what is a beneficial mutation? There is no way of knowing without natural selection. By definition a beneficial mutation is one favored by natural selection.

Sure, its true that without mutation there is no evolution, but that wasn't the point. The point was, what drives evolution. And that is still natural selection.

Because requiring random, chance processes is implying that God is not in direct control.

Don't confuse "random" with "chance", especially if you are referring to a deity of chance. "Random" only means unpredictable due to there being too many variable (and perhaps unknown) causes. It does not necessarily mean the causes are unintelligible in themselves. Scientists almost never speak of mutations occurring by chance. They speak of mutations being random.

Why even believe in God if you think that all of this life formed by chance mutations? I just don't get it. If you are a Christian who believes in evolution, why not say that God caused all mutations instead?

Mutations occur randomly, unpredictably, not necessarily by chance. God might well cause all mutations directly. I don't think he did, but I couldn't prove that he didn't.

 

[gluadys]

I'm new to this forum but isn't this a Christian forum? When I'm discussing these things with non-believers I do not bring faith into the discussion. But I assume I'm talking to Christians here, no? I thought we were discussing origins from a Christian perspective.

Even when Christians are speaking with other Christians on a Christian forum, the difference between science and theology needs to be respected. Science does not answer theological questions even for Christians.

 

[Blue2836]

You are. You're discussing origins from a Christian perspective with other Christians...Most of whom see nothing theologically wrong with God allowing a little randomness into the scientific picture.

Lady Kate, I was responding to someone who indicated that I should not even be mentioning God when we're discussing Science. That's why I pointed out that we are Christians discussing Scientific theories, therefore, it is acceptable to talk about God's role in all of this since we are doing it from a Christian perspective.

 

[Blue2836]

I think some of our discussion is going off into wild tangents because of us misunderstanding each other so I'll answer the main issues that we didn't already beat to death.

Do you really think the majority of scientists were convinced without there being strong evidence in its favour? Even the majority of scientists who believe in God? What you need to consider is what evidence convinced the scientists and why. I agree, you haven't seen enough evidence yet. There is still plenty more to see.

The fact is, Gluadys, that science has a tremendous bias that is evidenced by its tendencies to adopt unproven theories and ideas and falsely represent them as infallible truth, as well as its desire to ridicule all those who oppose the norm. For example, many of the hoaxes of which we mentioned a few, were falsely represented as truth for an entire generation in textbooks, journals, newspapers, classrooms, etc. Some hoaxes still remain in textbooks to this day simply because when it comes to evolution scientists and professors don't hold themselves to a standard of truth. Yet, textbooks, documentaries, journals and the like describe with utmost certainty things that they cannot possibly be sure of. If science was truly objective in its search for truth, they would tell the truth by preluding their ideas with qualifiers such as "the following evidence seems to indicate that millions of years ago the following took place." Instead, these theories are falsely represented as facts when they are not. Like scripture indicates, evil is always at war with God's truth. Science, like everything else, has been a tool of Satan. Science seeks to disprove God, as does the rest of society under the control of the evil one.

Except, of course, when they are not missing. How does your objection hold up then?

I have yet to see a series of fossils that, without question, firmly establish the evolution of a given species. These are, like you indicated, theories fueled by observations of the evidence and the interpretations of those doing the observing. I'm saying that these interpretations don't add up to anything other than creative story telling about a process that we cannot observe. Additionally, they certainly do not form a basis for a believer to reject the literal account of scripture.

Are you saying that Eldredge's trilobites were not there? Or that the Burgess Shale finds were not really there?

No, I clearly indicated that punctuated equilibrium is a way for science to make up for the fact that species just "popped up" out of nowhere the way they do in the Cambrian.

No, I didn't say "may" I said:

"All modern species evolved from earlier species."

Actually, you said: "What evolution says is that two or more modern species may have evolved from the same earlier species."

And you haven't learned enough about the theory or the evidence that supports it to have a valid opinion on its reliability yet.

Actually, I have learned much. I've been involved in these debates at much greater length than this although I am trying to avoid doing so here. Don't assume that I am ignorant of the theory simply because we are scratching the surface here. I just don't have a love for the theory like you do. It doesn't impress me because there is no real indication that any of it happened.

So we agree that similarity does not equal relationship. But it can be a clue to relationship, since some similarities are observed to be inherited. That is all science is saying too.

That's fine. But if science is only saying that these are clues, they should clearly state that instead of falsely representing opinion as truth the way they do.

No he wouldn't. He would say both evolved from a common ancestor. There is no way a great Dane could evolve from a chihuahua or vice versa.

We know that here and now. However, if a scientist was observing long extinct Chihuahuas and great Danes, not ever actually seeing them together, he could very well come to the conclusion that one evolved from another. Such has been the case with the famous horse sequence lineage printed in textbooks over the last few decades.

Science is built on empirical evidence. Something is convincing scientists of evolution. If it is not the mountain of empirical evidence, what is it? And if the empirical evidence does not show evolution, what does it show?

As you undoubtedly know being a Christian, mankind and the forces of evil in general are on a mission to disprove God. This bias creates a tremendous motivation for scientists to do what they have done; that is, falsely represent hoaxes and opinions as facts when they are not, while ridiculing all who dare question their theories. Man's sinful nature is at war with God and that drives the scientific community to do the dishonest things that it does. Science desperately wants to prove the theory of evolution. That's why these quacks get away with the hoaxes. Don't get me wrong, I love and respect science; but when it comes to origins, science has been dishonest, irresponsible, and corrupt on more than a few occasions.

Yes, but not that it was a global flood. A global flood is falsified by geology. Check out some of glen morton's posts to see why.

Well, now we're back to how you can believe that scripture is the inspired word of God, but yet believe that parts of it are myth. Why even believe that any of it at all is literal? How do you know that the entire story of Christ is not fable as well?

If it was just your personal preference not to get into the evidence in the geologic column, that would be ok. The problem is that no creationist, not even creationist scientists, have ever produced a non-evolutionary explanation of fossil distribution in the geologic column that fits the evidence.

That's not true but, like I said, we'll leave that alone since time does not permit for me to spend this much time on this forum. If you want, look up Geologic Column misconceptions in Google.

Can the theory of evolution still be wrong? Sure. As soon as evidence is found which it can't possibly explain, even with significant revision.

Well, anything can be creatively explained especially when the one doing the explaining has the advantage of being allowed to represent his explanation as absolute truth even when it is not.

None of these are a problem for the theory of evolution. Piltdown man was a hoax, so that does not violate the theory. Nebraska Man was a journalist's pipe dream which was corrected by scientists. So that does not violate the theory of evolution. And Java man was the earliest discovery of a Homo erectus that, far from violating the theory, provides evidence for it.

But these are problems because science is so careless in its desperate search for proof of the theory that it will unwillingly perpetuate fraud in the process. Piltdown man, completely reconstructed with his surroundings, was our ancestor for fifty years in textbooks, journals, museums, and all kinds of publications. It would have been fine if it were merely offered up as a possibility but it was actually decided that this was our ancestor - an entirely fabricated creature. Where else in science does fraud permeate and dominate it so easily?

What whole theory? How does this violate the theory of evolution or any part of it? Did you think that because, until now, no fish fossil had been found in the Cambrian that scientists were predicting that no fish fossil would ever be found in the Cambrian?

You said: "[...]For example, consider how many varieties of modern life are not found at all in the Cambrian:no mammals of any kind, nor birds, nor reptiles, nor fish. [...]." My search quickly produced fish in the Cambrian. That's what I was pointing out. Obviously, you were wrong. This illustrates how you simply cannot say anything with absolute certainty based upon such weak assertions.

Ok, so now the argument is that penguins did not lose their wings, but that their wings became smaller. That is perfectly feasible.

Sure its feasible, but it is observable?

No, the ear bones look like whale earbones. So do many details of the skull.

This is the classic error I'm talking about. Basically, because the ear and skull bones look like whales', then the creature is related to a whale. It is nothing more than a similarity, falsely equated with relationship.

She could well be. Not every transitional form has left modern descendants. Basilieus is still a good example of a whale intermediate between terrestrial whale ancestors and modern whales.

The fact that she could be right should indicate that we should not be representing this as absolute truth in our schools. Yet, we are. Why is that?

It sounds to me that you are still asking for the impossible: DNA evidence that identifies a fossil as the direct ancestor of a specific modern species. But fossils don't have DNA.

I'm not asking for the impossible. I'm identifying the fact that it is impossible to prove evolution to be true, yet we teach it as truth.

I think you have also forgotten my entire point. Evolution does not depend on fossils to provide proof or even evidence in its favour. We have enough evidence for evolution that if we had not one single fossil, it is still the most compelling of biological theories. Evolution doesn't need fossils. But fossils do need evolution. Nothing else explains fossils and the fossil record

.

If you say so. I'm compelled to disagree.

 

[The Lady Kate]

The fact is, Gluadys, that science has a tremendous bias that is evidenced by its tendencies to adopt unproven theories and ideas and falsely represent them as infallible truth, as well as its desire to ridicule all those who oppose the norm.

This is not "fact," but opinion.

For example, many of the hoaxes of which we mentioned a few, were falsely represented as truth for an entire generation in textbooks, journals, newspapers, classrooms, etc. Some hoaxes still remain in textbooks to this day simply because when it comes to evolution scientists and professors don't hold themselves to a standard of truth.

Which hoaxes are still in the books? Name a few.
And isn't it more likely that this is the result of poor textbooks than some sinister scientific conspiracy?

The fact is, textbooks in all subjects are woefully full of errors, due to poor fact checking on the part of publishers. A Google search on "Textbook errors"

Yet, textbooks, documentaries, journals and the like describe with utmost certainty things that they cannot possibly be sure of. If science was truly objective in its search for truth, they would tell the truth by preluding their ideas with qualifiers such as "the following evidence seems to indicate that millions of years ago the following took place." Instead, these theories are falsely represented as facts when they are not.

And only evolution is singled out in this regard. Gravity, electricity, germs, and atomic structure are similarly accepted without question, and nobody seems to blink.

Why do you suppose that is?

Like scripture indicates, evil is always at war with God's truth. Science, like everything else, has been a tool of Satan. Science seeks to disprove God, as does the rest of society under the control of the evil one.

So everything is under control of Satan, is it? Tinfoil-hat theology at its finest.

I have yet to see a series of fossils that, without question, firmly establish the evolution of a given species. These are, like you indicated, theories fueled by observations of the evidence and the interpretations of those doing the observing. I'm saying that these interpretations don't add up to anything other than creative story telling about a process that we cannot observe. Additionally, they certainly do not form a basis for a believer to reject the literal account of scripture.

You need to see more fossils. You also need to see that fossils are far from being the only thing which contradict a literal account of Scripture.

Actually, I have learned much. I've been involved in these debates at much greater length than this although I am trying to avoid doing so here. Don't assume that I am ignorant of the theory simply because we are scratching the surface here. I just don't have a love for the theory like you do. It doesn't impress me because there is no real indication that any of it happened.

We have no real indication that yesterday happened, but that doesn't stop us from presenting it as truth.

That's fine. But if science is only saying that these are clues, they should clearly state that instead of falsely representing opinion as truth the way they do.

Are you referring to evolution, gravity, electricity, germs, or atomic structure science?

We know that here and now. However, if a scientist was observing long extinct Chihuahuas and great Danes, not ever actually seeing them together, he could very well come to the conclusion that one evolved from another. Such has been the case with the famous horse sequence lineage printed in textbooks over the last few decades.

And a better scientist would have come along and figured out that while they were related, one was not a descendent of the other.

As you undoubtedly know being a Christian, mankind and the forces of evil in general are on a mission to disprove God.

As you undoubtedly do not know, not every Christian subscribes to tinfoil-hat theology.

Well, now we're back to how you can believe that scripture is the inspired word of God, but yet believe that parts of it are myth. Why even believe that any of it at all is literal? How do you know that the entire story of Christ is not fable as well?

That which has not or cannot be falsified is accepted as true as a matter of faith.

Well, anything can be creatively explained especially when the one doing the explaining has the advantage of being allowed to represent his explanation as absolute truth even when it is not.

Which applies to Creationists as well. Alas, they do not have the luxury of physical evidence to support their claims.

But these are problems because science is so careless in its desperate search for proof of the theory that it will unwillingly perpetuate fraud in the process. Piltdown man, completely reconstructed with his surroundings, was our ancestor for fifty years in textbooks, journals, museums, and all kinds of publications. It would have been fine if it were merely offered up as a possibility but it was actually decided that this was our ancestor - an entirely fabricated creature. Where else in science does fraud permeate and dominate it so easily?

Where else is fraud caught just as easliy?

 

[gluadys]

I think some of our discussion is going off into wild tangents because of us misunderstanding each other so I'll answer the main issues that we didn't already beat to death.



The fact is, Gluadys, that science has a tremendous bias that is evidenced by its tendencies to adopt unproven theories and ideas and falsely represent them as infallible truth, as well as its desire to ridicule all those who oppose the norm.

You have to be much more specific to convince me of this. How many scientific theories have been adopted without reasonable evidence that they are true? Which theories are they? Is not every science purported to be based on evidence? How do you know the evidence is not valid?

Science presents nothing as infallible truth. Infallibility is a doctrinal issue, not a scientific concet. Scientific truth is by definition provisional. To my way of thinking, if a person graduating from grade school, never mind high school, does not know that all scientific truth is tentative and provisional, something is horribly wrong with the science curriculum. This is one of the first principles of science and should be taught early and repeated often.

And please show me a science textbook that ridicules those who oppose science.

For example, many of the hoaxes of which we mentioned a few, were falsely represented as truth for an entire generation in textbooks, journals, newspapers, classrooms, etc.

Which generation? Not mine I can tell you. My very first biology text which discussed evolution was published in 1957. It presented Piltdown man as a hoax. (and that had been discovered only four years earlier). It did not mention Nebraska man at all. It presented Java man as the legitimate fossil it is. It discussed the fact that some of Haeckel's drawings were fraudulent. If all this was known and published in a textbook more than 40 years ago, why would they be in any newer textbooks unless the publishers and editors were incompetent. If anyone can document that textbooks used at any level of education published at any time since 1960 did not handle these frauds correctly, they should sue the publishers.

Some hoaxes still remain in textbooks to this day simply because when it comes to evolution scientists and professors don't hold themselves to a standard of truth.

If that is the case I suggest that parents of affected children sue the school board for using textbooks from the 1930's.

Yet, textbooks, documentaries, journals and the like describe with utmost certainty things that they cannot possibly be sure of.

Of course. As I said, all scientific truth is provisional. We can't be certain of any of it.

If science was truly objective in its search for truth, they would tell the truth by preluding their ideas with qualifiers such as "the following evidence seems to indicate that millions of years ago the following took place."

How ironic. You want these qualifiers on every page of the text. Yet when presented with a scientific paper filled with "probably"s, "may have"s, and "perhap"s the typical creationist reaction is that the researchers have no confidence in their data.

The correct thing to do is to hammer home two facts:
1. all scientific truths are held to be provisional
2. all science is a discovery of natural processes and does not assume miraculous interventions.

Barring a miracle, or unexpected new evidence, it is a fact that some events occurred millions of years ago, and it is not incorrect to say so.

But why should a text book have to put this information in every paragraph? It is a given for all science, and should always be interpreted in this way.

Instead, these theories are falsely represented as facts when they are not.

That is because theories are built on facts; they are not facts in themselves, they are explanations which relate one set of facts to another and give them meaning by setting them in a logical frame of reference. Theories should indeed be presented as theories. And well-substantiated theories which are supported by a great deal of evidence should be presented as well-founded theories. But a student who graduates from high school not knowing what the characteristics of a scientific theory are, and how it differs from both fact and wild guess, has not been well taught. And any science teacher who is so incompetent as to equate a theory with a fact should be quickly removed from the science classroom until s/he has had a remedial course in basic scientific terminology.

Like scripture indicates, evil is always at war with God's truth. Science, like everything else, has been a tool of Satan. Science seeks to disprove God, as does the rest of society under the control of the evil one.

Please find me just one sentence in any peer-reviewed and published scientific paper, or in any approved science text-book intended for general public use at any level which aims to disprove God.

If this is the aim of science, it must sure be a very covert one, because I have never seen any attempt to carry it out.

I have yet to see a series of fossils that, without question, firmly establish the evolution of a given species. These are, like you indicated, theories fueled by observations of the evidence and the interpretations of those doing the observing. I'm saying that these interpretations don't add up to anything other than creative story telling about a process that we cannot observe.

You are forgetting that we can and do observe the process. And having observed the process, we know the characteristic pattern of changing morphology it generates. So when we see the same pattern of changing morphology in fossils, it is not a leap of faith to infer that it is due to the same process we have observed.

Why should we not consider any of these fossil series evidence of evolution?

btw a note on snail fossils. A biologist who used to post regularly here often included a sequence of 6 snails similar to the picture in the link above as an example of a fossil series. At one point someone challenged him about this six-snail sequence. lucaspa then explained that he had chosen for his picture six representative snails from the university's collection of 3,000 in the sequence. All the "gaps" are fully filled.

Foraminifera are an extinct group of species found commonly in the fossil record. They show an exceptionally smooth transition of 330 species over a span of 66 million years. No gaps. Just a few of them are shown in the link above.

So that is at least two examples for you.

Additionally, they certainly do not form a basis for a believer to reject the literal account of scripture.

Well that's theology, not science.

No, I clearly indicated that punctuated equilibrium is a way for science to make up for the fact that species just "popped up" out of nowhere the way they do in the Cambrian.

And you were wrong. Punk eek is supported by evidence of stasis and by the evidenced of smooth transitions in some local areas followed by migration into the wider field. Without the evidence of the predicted smooth transitions, it is doubtful that punctuated equilibrium would have found the support it did.

Actually, you said: "What evolution says is that two or more modern species may have evolved from the same earlier species."

Ah, the next sentence, which you chose to misinterpret. And go back to the irony of understanding the "may" as scientific doubt about common ancestry in general, when it is intended to refer to specific cases.

Both sentences are accurate.

All modern species are evolved from earlier species.

But that doesn't mean we have all the data on which species evolved from which earlier species. Say we have a group of 250 species (numbered 1-200) and a group of 20 fossil species (labeled a to t). Do we know that both species 16 and species 176 share common ancestor g? Or is one a descendant of ancestor m and the other of ancestor f?

No we don't. Not until we do a thorough phylogenic study. So until we have the study results we can only say that species 16 and species 176 may share ancestor g.

Even then the study results may be ambiguous, so we still have to say "may"

So sorting out the details takes a lot of time and work, and answers don't come easily. But that is not an indication that scientists are blowing away the whole concept of common ancestry. We already have more than enough evidence that the concept is sound. The controversies come when trying to place individual species. It is like working with a 5 million piece jig-saw puzzle that is only about 1% done. There will be controveries about where to place some of the pieces because they can seem to fit in more than one place.

It doesn't impress me because there is no real indication that any of it happened.

Well, you have to expose yourself to more of the evidence, and approach it with an open mind, not with the pre-supposition that it is a tool of the devil. The evidence is the only thing that can tell you that evolution happened. But there is a lot of it, and some of it is not easy to understand without a firm grasp of how evolution works.

That's fine. But if science is only saying that these are clues, they should clearly state that instead of falsely representing opinion as truth the way they do.

What homologies do is direct study of evolution to where relationships are most likely to exist. It is difficult to provide a scenario other than evolution for many homologous relationships. Since homologous similarities are inherited similarities, the homologous origin of the bones in the tetrapod limb means these were inherited. So how did the variations that distinguish the tetrapod limb in various vertebrate species from lizards to birds to frogs to foxes come about if not through evolution directing the changes?

The homology is fact. Evolution is the theory which best explains this fact.

 

[gluadys]

Such has been the case with the famous horse sequence lineage printed in textbooks over the last few decades.

Which is why Niles Eldredge protested the common use of this image. It presented a false idea of evolution,though the text that originally accompanied it did not. Problem is, only university doctoral candidates were reading the text while nearly everyone has seen the image.

Fortunately modern textbooks are now using more accurate images like this.

As you undoubtedly know being a Christian, mankind and the forces of evil in general are on a mission to disprove God.

No I don't know that. Where in scripture do you get that from? I know Scripture presents Satan as God's adversary, but I don't recall that Satan is trying to disprove God. Win victory over God, yes. Disprove God, no.

This bias creates a tremendous motivation for scientists to do what they have done;

Stuff and nonsense. Why would devout Jewish, Christian and Muslim scientists be operating with such a motivation?

that is, falsely represent hoaxes and opinions as facts when they are not, while ridiculing all who dare question their theories. Man's sinful nature is at war with God and that drives the scientific community to do the dishonest things that it does.

Please provide examples of the scientific community supporting (rather than exposing) hoaxes. I won't dispute that a few highly visible scientists do poke fun at creationists in their speech and non-scientific writing. But I challenge you to show that the scientific community by and large agrees with them and copies them. Science does not include the personal opinions of scientists when they are not talking about science.

Science desperately wants to prove the theory of evolution.

Wishful thinking. Technically theories are never proved. They are, however, confidently accepted as provisional truth if the evidence warrants it. More than 99% of today's biologists hold that evolution is as close to truth as anything scientific ever gets. They consistently describe it as one of the best supported theories in all of science. No, there is no desperation in the scientific community over evolution. As far as science is concerned evolution is a fact and there is no need to continually strive to show it is a fact. It is accepted as fact and used as the basis for more interesting research.

That's why these quacks get away with the hoaxes.

Which quacks are getting away with which hoaxes?

Don't get me wrong, I love and respect science; but when it comes to origins, science has been dishonest, irresponsible, and corrupt on more than a few occasions.

No. Some scientists have been dishonest, like that German paleontologist who was faking his findings. But science tends to expose hoaxes not promote them. Hard to say that a community which exposes fellow scientists who engage in hoaxes is a dishonest, irresponsible and corrupt community. Seems to me politicians and financiers could take a lesson from scientists on this point.

Well, now we're back to how you can believe that scripture is the inspired word of God, but yet believe that parts of it are myth. Why even believe that any of it at all is literal? How do you know that the entire story of Christ is not fable as well?

Through studying the scriptures and the times in which they were written we learn to identify the different genres and which are historical and which not. The gospels do not bear the character of mythical writing. Much of Genesis does.

That's not true but, like I said, we'll leave that alone since time does not permit for me to spend this much time on this forum. If you want, look up Geologic Column misconceptions in Google.

Seen it before. Most of these misconceptions are themselves misconceptions. In any case my point still stands. No creationist, not even creationist scientists, have ever produced a non-evolutionary explanation of fossil distribution in the geologic column that fits the evidence.

Well, anything can be creatively explained especially when the one doing the explaining has the advantage of being allowed to represent his explanation as absolute truth even when it is not.

Only the Sith deal in absolutes.

Piltdown man, completely reconstructed with his surroundings, was our ancestor for fifty years in textbooks, journals, museums, and all kinds of publications.

Piltdown man was discovered in 1912 IIRC and exposed as a hoax in 1953 through use of a fluorine test just recently developed. It should be noted, as well, that it was not tested because a hoax was suspected, but because it was an anomalous human fossil and scientists thought the test might help them discover some more information. They never even considered a hoax until the test showed the age discrepancy. Then they looked for evidence of a hoax and quickly found it.

No hoax since has lasted even half as long. Most have been exposed within a few months.

It is now 2005, more than 50 years since Piltdown man was discredited. Isn't it time to put this one to bed? Where is the evidence that science is riddled with hoaxes today?

You said: "[...]For example, consider how many varieties of modern life are not found at all in the Cambrian:no mammals of any kind, nor birds, nor reptiles, nor fish. [...]." My search quickly produced fish in the Cambrian. That's what I was pointing out. Obviously, you were wrong. This illustrates how you simply cannot say anything with absolute certainty based upon such weak assertions.

Do you honestly consider that the whole foundation of paleontology will be cracked asunder because one amateur does not keep up with recent scientific literature?

Sure its feasible, but it is observable?

Ask a paleontologist who has studied penguins.

This is the classic error I'm talking about. Basically, because the ear and skull bones look like whales', then the creature is related to a whale. It is nothing more than a similarity, falsely equated with relationship.

No, it is not just a similarity. These are homologous bones. Furthermore, whale ear bones are adapted for hearing in water. They are very distinct and found only in whales. The skull is also very distinct. So when a skeleton is found with characters that are found only in whales, and formed from the same homologous bone structure, that makes a very good case for inheritance of characters.

The fact that she could be right should indicate that we should not be representing this as absolute truth in our schools. Yet, we are. Why is that?

I am not sure you understand what she may be right about.

I'm not asking for the impossible. I'm identifying the fact that it is impossible to prove evolution to be true, yet we teach it as truth.

In the first place, one of the things we should be teaching is that science does not depend on proof; it depends on evidence. The evidence does show that evolution is true, so that is why it should be taught as truth.

If you say so. I'm compelled to disagree.

Compelled by what?

 

[shernren]

Well Blue, I see two main issues in your responses:

1. A reliance on literal details, and
2. A dislike for the atheism of science.

I should know, because I was a YEC up to when I joined this forum, and then my views changed over. It can be a difficult process, but I would encourage you to try it. TalkOrigins would be a good place to start

Now, about reliance on details. A lot of YECs make a fuss about how the Bible says "exactly six days - no less, no more!" But if Genesis 1 is a non-literal account, then the details are only important insofar as they support the main thrust of the story. Let me give you an example.

In the story of the Prodigal Son, we have a son who rejects his father, runs off and squanders his inheritance, becomes a low-life pig tender, and finally comes to his senses and returns to great joy. Now, the implications of this parable are normally taught as "God is willing to accept anyone who has sinned and is willing to turn back to Him", or something close enough for the discussion at hand.

But I would disagree. I would say "Nope, the parable only shows that unfilial younger sons who become pig tenders and then repent can be accepted by their fathers." Of course you'd disagree! Then I'd say, "If Jesus meant this story to be about God, why didn't He say 'God had two sons' instead of 'There was a father who had two sons'? Why did He say 'The younger son' instead of just 'A son'?" Etc. etc. ...

*reductio ad absurdum mode off*

Now, we know that you can't do that to this parable, simply because it is a parable, and not an actual historical story. (Actually, we could argue allowances for historicals too, but that's outside the point...) The main idea of the story applies whether the repentant is a son or a daughter, younger or older, unfilial or "just" a murderer, etc .... the point is, if we take the literary genre of "parable" (since "myth" has such terrible connotations) for Genesis, a lot of these objections ("just six days", "birds and whales before land animals", etc. ) go away peacefully. Asking how creation can be six million years old when the Bible says six days and six thousand years, would be a little like asking why I should love Malays and Indians as myself when the Bible says the Samaritan is my neighbour ...

The second objection, about the atheism of science, is because some people feel that "science is looking at the world and saying God isn't there." But I would put this in more positive terms: "what God has intervened in, science cannot study." I have said a lot about this in "the fallacy of the alternative interpretation" ... basically, science is about forming hypotheses that make falsifiable predictions, and hopefully coming up with logical physical models that explain these hypotheses.

Take for example gravity. (Which, by the way, is far less understood than evolution.) It may actually be that when the Bible says "Christ holds all things together by the power of His Word" (to that effect) it is actually referring to Jesus saying "Okay, I want all of you particles to start moving towards each other. NOW!" This might actually be happening. But, since the physical model(s) of GR/SR, superstring theory, and the good old approximation of Gm1m2/d^2 predict rather correctly the force two particles exert on each other, we take that as the scientific statement, even if what is really happening is different.

So it is impossible to "prove" that evolution is true, in the sense that you never know if God made a few million fossils of creatures that never existed, put them into relationships suggesting evolutionary lineages that never actually happened, and then obliterated a few trillion radionuclides and sucked the heat out of the universe while He was at it. But evolution does a good job scientifically as a model. Like Puddleglum says in "The Silver Chair" (and which I twist to a far different purpose ), "We're just babies making a game, if you're right. But four babies playing a game can make a play-world which licks your real world hollow." Evolution hauls a lot of scientific work which creation science has yet to catch up with. Guess who I stand by?

 

[Blue2836]

I'm sorry guys. I'm trying to find the time to sit here and reply to all of your posts but I do love this forum so far, and I think your responses are great. Shernren, great post. When I find the time, I'll try to reply to everything that has been said.

 

[Smidlee]

TalkOrigins would be a good place to start

Blue, If you want to learn about what the hardcore evolutionist (those who feels strongly it a fact) thinks then there's no better place to learn about their view than Talkorigins. I read some articles of this site that presents something shown to be fact while I've notice the scientist themselves disagree on.