Nothing changes in this forum.

[Speedwell]

Observation says everything remains what it is in the family to which it belongs. Show me something observed that doesn't. Observed DNA says everything can be identified as what it is by DNA. There is no observed crossovers or changes in DNA which leads us to think or believe it may be something it isn't. It's not that hard.

Alas, your understanding of what the theory of evolution actually says betrays you--evolution does not predict nor require such crossovers.

Let me tell you a parable:

A long, long time ago in a distant land there was a big valley. In this valley there was a tree, which had grown from a seed planted by God. The tree grew and branched and grew some more and over many years it became a huge tree with many branches from its single trunk. Then there was a disaster. A volcano erupted in the nearby mountains and filled the valley with mud. But the tips of many of the branches still stuck out of the mud. And the tree continued to live and grow and after a while the deep valley with a single tree looked like a flat plain with many trees growing in it, a forest indeed. Then some men came, and saw that the forest would be good to live in, and they wrote a holy book describing how God had created all of the individual trees in the forest just before they got there. God saw the book and approved of it, because even though they didn’t have the creation of the trees quite right, they gave him credit for it and that was sufficient. After people had lived in the forest for a long time, some of them became scientists. They started digging around the trees and found out that some of them were connected underground. They didn’t have individual roots but rather were connected in some branching way. The deeper they dug, the fewer and larger the branches became. Finally the scientists said, “You know what? It’s beginning to look as if this was one single huge tree, not a bunch of individual trees.” The High Priest was horrified. “If that’s true then our holy book is a lie and there is no God.” The scientists kept digging and the High Priest paced and fumed, “Those branching structures are just an assumption. I’ll grant you that some of the trees, maybe many, are connected underground but I won’t believe that it’s a single tree until you dig clear down and show me the trunk itself.”

The moral of this story is that there are no crossovers. The structure of the tree is produced by repeated branching, the parts below the ground the same as the parts above the ground.

 

[rjs330]

Er, you do know that "families" (in terms of taxonomy) have no biological reality right? It's just part of the taxonomic hierarchy and used to make the identification of broad groups of organisms easier.

Right and that's how we know the difference between and guinnea pig and a chimp. It's also how we know the difference between a human and a chimp.

 

[rjs330]

Because some of us are satisfied that in the absense of "proof," confirming evidence is sufficient to establish the provisional truth of scientific theories. This approach has some utility, having given us numerous benefits in medical science and other technologies which we would have to do without if we had insisted on waiting for proof. On the other hand, creationism has neither proof nor confirmation and doesn't seem to be useful for anything.

You don't need evolution from a common ancestor to make medical science work. Common design works just as well.

 

[Speedwell]

You don't need evolution from a common ancestor to make medical science work. Common design works just as well.

No, but common descent is a reasonable inference from the available data. If you want to make a different inference, you have to have an answer to why, if life could diversify from a relatively few creation events, it could not have diversified from a single creation event.

 

[pitabread]

You don't need evolution from a common ancestor to make medical science work. Common design works just as well.

Except for two things:

1) Except there are evolutionary approaches to medicine/medical research and other biology-related fields, and even patents on such techniques by biotech companies. So claiming that evolution isn't needed runs contrary to what is actually happening in the real world.

2) There is no scientific theory of "common design". Consequently, there are no derived applications from it.

(I realize this is beating the dead horse with you, as we've been through this in the past. But just in case any lurkers are about...)

 

[rjs330]

Alas, your understanding of what the theory of evolution actually says betrays you--evolution does not predict nor require such crossovers.

Let me tell you a parable:

A long, long time ago in a distant land there was a big valley. In this valley there was a tree, which had grown from a seed planted by God. The tree grew and branched and grew some more and over many years it became a huge tree with many branches from its single trunk. Then there was a disaster. A volcano erupted in the nearby mountains and filled the valley with mud. But the tips of many of the branches still stuck out of the mud. And the tree continued to live and grow and after a while the deep valley with a single tree looked like a flat plain with many trees growing in it, a forest indeed. Then some men came, and saw that the forest would be good to live in, and they wrote a holy book describing how God had created all of the individual trees in the forest just before they got there. God saw the book and approved of it, because even though they didn’t have the creation of the trees quite right, they gave him credit for it and that was sufficient. After people had lived in the forest for a long time, some of them became scientists. They started digging around the trees and found out that some of them were connected underground. They didn’t have individual roots but rather were connected in some branching way. The deeper they dug, the fewer and larger the branches became. Finally the scientists said, “You know what? It’s beginning to look as if this was one single huge tree, not a bunch of individual trees.” The High Priest was horrified. “If that’s true then our holy book is a lie and there is no God.” The scientists kept digging and the High Priest paced and fumed, “Those branching structures are just an assumption. I’ll grant you that some of the trees, maybe many, are connected underground but I won’t believe that it’s a single tree until you dig clear down and show me the trunk itself.”

The moral of this story is that there are no crossovers. The structure of the tree is produced by repeated branching, the parts below the ground the same as the parts above the ground.

Here's some facts your missing from the story. The tree didn't change. It's still the same tree that was planted. Let's just say it was an oak tree. It didn't become a juniper bush or a ponderosa or a weeping willow. It's was still an oak tree. Secondly the scientists in the story actually dug and could physically trace the branches to the trunk.

Evolution says that oak tree became a juniper and a ponderosa and a weeping willow and a palm tree and a Japanese maple.

Evolution also says the scientists can't actually physically follow a branch to the trunk. They follow a branch a short distance, but then have to assume the rest cause they can't actually get there.

 

[rjs330]

No, but common descent is a reasonable inference from the available data. If you want to make a different inference, you have to have an answer to why, if life could diversify from a relatively few creation events, it could not have diversified from a single creation event.

Nobody said it couldn't. We just say it didn't. Actual observation says it didn't which confirms the biblical story.

 

[pitabread]

Evolution says that oak tree became a juniper and a ponderosa and a weeping willow and a palm tree and a Japanese maple.

Except that "evolution" doesn't say that at all.

 

[Speedwell]

Here's some facts your missing from the story. The tree didn't change. It's still the same tree that was planted. Let's just say it was an oak tree. It didn't become a juniper bush or a ponderosa or a weeping willow. It's was still an oak tree. Secondly the scientists in the story actually dug and could physically trace the branches to the trunk.

You needn't push the story too far. I only told it as a way of explaining to you why there were no "crossovers."

Evolution says that oak tree became a juniper and a ponderosa and a weeping willow and a palm tree and a Japanese maple.

Of course not in the story. There was no mechanism suggested which would change the character of the branches as they grew. Evolution has such a mechanism, observed and tested.

Evolution also says the scientists can't actually physically follow a branch to the trunk. They follow a branch a short distance, but then have to assume the rest cause they can't actually get there.

No, but they're still digging deeper shafts, and nothing has come up yet which counters the inference of a single tree with a common trunk. And, as a working hypothesis, it has helped them discover even deeper branches

 

[DogmaHunter]

Thank you!

Although I have a confession, it's not technically my birthday today. I use a fake b-day when registering for web sites. But I appreciate the sentiment.

I do that too

In fact, I make it a sport to be as unidentifiable on the interwebs as humanly possible. Which in the days of "social" media, can be quite a challenge.

I stay away from all that nonsense off course, but I'm positive that that hasn't stopped the failbooks of this world to have a profile on me anyway, build from data provided by other people (being in their contacts, having face tagged in pictures, etc).

I hate today how every other platform and their mothers are so desperatly seeking to obtain your personal info. Some of them these days even dare to demand your mobile phone number so that they can text you a code to "activate your account". It's absolutely disgusting.

And there I go again, ranting about the "social" interweb once again.



Sorry. pet peeve of mine

 

[tas8831]

OK...

How about this (you would need to watch the clip to fully appreciate it)...

The story of Duane Miller

Duane Miller’s greatest enjoyment came from preaching at his small church and singing songs of worship. It wasn’t just his livelihood to lead a Baptist congregation in Brenham, Texas; it was his passion, his calling, and his source of joy and satisfaction. When he awoke with the flu one Sunday morning, his throat was like sandpaper and his voice would “catch” on words. Each syllable was painful to speak. The flu soon disappeared, but his windpipe remained ablaze and his voice reduced to a raspy whisper. His throat felt constricted, as if someone were choking him. For all practical purposes, Miller’s voice was gone. No longer able to preach, he resigned from his pastorate. He eventually landed a government job researching records—a position he then lost because his inability to speak meant he couldn’t testify in court about his findings. Insurance stopped covering his treatments, and he faced thousands of dollars in medical bills. “For the first time in my life, I felt utterly useless. My income, my future, my health, my sense of well-being, all were suddenly beyond my control. It was a terrifying and humbling experience,” he said. Over three years, he was examined by sixty-three physicians. His case was even scrutinized by a Swiss symposium of the world’s leading throat specialists. The diagnosis: the flu virus destroyed the nerves of his vocal cords, rendering them limp.

The guy with a biology degree accepts this made up nonsense as proof of miracles???

Where are the NAMES of the doctors? What was this Swiss consortium called?

From his book (always writing books... aren't they?) blurb:
" Then with breakthrough technology he was able to begin teaching Sunday School again"

The "miracle" was his throat stopped hurting one day.

WOW!!!

The power of God is AMAZING!


Sure, people are starving in the streets, sure there are wars and rape and torture - but this one pastor was allowed to give sermons pain-free due to Jesus! Well, after man's technology allowed him to talk again....

Someone mentioned earlier that evangelicals have much lower standards of evidence for what they accept as miracles than they do for science.

He was 100% correct.

This is a joke.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Do you actually read all the posts where I explain how that is absolutely not true? What an arrogant comment you make. You act as if your word is to be taken as fact without question.

I'm asking for proof because I should expect it on any claim I disagree with. Just because you have this conveniently wrapped up as something people should believe without proof, doesn't mean that is correct and it's certainly not going to fly for many of us.

Congratulations are in order.
You once again managed to completely sidestep the actual point.

Then stop stalling by asking me if I have this or that. Tell you what, assume whatever you like on the questions, assume I did something wrong or whatever nonsense you are trying to prove with the line of questioning, ok? Now that you've done that, did any of what you concluded from the answers given you, in any way give you reason at all not to answer my simple request?

If you don't want to answer the questions, then we can only go ahead and assume your most likely answers. For that, we would have to look back at your posting and discussion habbits. There, we see that you make it a habbit, if not a sport, to make false claims, have them corrected only to restate the false claims.

So.... we would have to assume that your answer is to @Ophiolite is "no" - you will NOT be making any effort, nore will you even properly acknowledge the points he will be bringing up.

Instead, the expectation is that you'll handwave them away with a few completely invalid one-liners. Then you'll disappear from the thread for a few pages. Then you'll come back and make the same nonsense claims again, which have already been addressed and corrected.

So, the conclusion is that you are not sincere in your requests for evidence in support for evolution. Hint number one for that, is that you are STILL asking for "proof", while countless posts have been made to you that explain rather clearly why there is no such thing as "proof" for scientific theories.

In other words, spending time and effort to write up a summary of evidence for you with links to resources, is a gigantic waste of time.

You won't be honestly considering or reading any of it.
And frankly, I wonder why you would even pretend otherwise.

Just be honest.

You have your religion and you are going to stick to it. No matter what evidence we post. It will never be enough for you. Because you have already decided what you are going to believe. You didn't base that decision on actual evidence, so no amount of evidence is going to make you think otherwise.

Evidence, is not what determines your position of belief.

Yours is a classic stall/find a way to blame the opposition for your lack of action.

No. It's a recognition of a dishonest request by a creationist who is not interested in the answers.

You have proven time and again in the past that trying to make you understand both the evidence as well as the theory, is a waste of time and energy. I'm not even talking about convincing you of the accuracy or merrit of the theory. I'm just talking about understanding what it actually says and being aware of the evidence in support of it. And understanding the difference between proof and evidence for that matter....

Someone needs to get on the stick here before I get bored/feel I've wasted too much time, and withdraw the opportunity, an opportunity I would think you'd be chomping at the bit to take advantage of.

What opportunity? Of again wasting time and energy on posts which you will just handwave away with a bible in your hand?

 

[bhsmte]

I doubt it. You refuse to accept any scientific statements with out proof. We are prepared to accept them if there is confirming evidence. We don't regard scientific statements as being "Truth" with a capital T, so we find confirming evidence sufficient.

I wonder if he denies all science, for lack of proof. Or maybe, it is only the well evidenced science, that contradict his personal faith beliefs.

 

[rjs330]

No, but common descent is a reasonable inference from the available data. If you want to make a different inference, you have to have an answer to why, if life could diversify from a relatively few creation events, it could not have diversified from a single creation event.

Once again because the Bible says it didn't.
Common design is just as reasonable AND it fits with what the Bible says. Thus supporting it.

The commalities in all things and the DNA that shows even though there are comminalities, we are also very different creatures.

 

[Speedwell]

Once again because the Bible says it didn't.
Common design is just as reasonable AND it fits with what the Bible says. Thus supporting it.

The commalities in all things and the DNA that shows even though there are comminalities, we are also very different creatures.

That doesn't cut it. Whatever some Christians might believe about the Bible, from the scientific standpoint it's nothing but an old book of stories. A book is not evidence of anything. A scientist doesn't think any more of the Bible as evidence of creation than he does of Origin of Species as evidence of evolution.

Furthermore, you talk about "common design" and "common descent" as if they were mutually exclusive alternatives. They're not, and you are going to have to figure out which one you want to talk about.

Thirdly, there is at present no coherent theory of special creation I don't think that creationists have paid much attention to this, as they seem to suffer under the strange delusion that all they have to do is impeach evolution and creationism will triumph, but that's not how it works. If you overturn the theory of evolution (which is always possible, being that it's a scientific theory) all you will have is an overturned theory. Right now you have nothing to replace it with but a Bible story; there's not even a shadow of a replacement theory.

 

[rjs330]

Except for two things:

1) Except there are evolutionary approaches to medicine/medical research and other biology-related fields, and even patents on such techniques by biotech companies. So claiming that evolution isn't needed runs contrary to what is actually happening in the real world.

2) There is no scientific theory of "common design". Consequently, there are no derived applications from it.

(I realize this is beating the dead horse with you, as we've been through this in the past. But just in case any lurkers are about...)

Yes there are evolutionary approaches, but they are not necessary. Not at all.

 

[rjs330]

Except that "evolution" doesn't say that at all.

Yes it does. You just don't want to admit it.

 

[rjs330]

You needn't push the story too far. I only told it as a way of explaining to you why there were no "crossovers."

Of course not in the story. There was no mechanism suggested which would change the character of the branches as they grew. Evolution has such a mechanism, observed and tested.

No, but they're still digging deeper shafts, and nothing has come up yet which counters the inference of a single tree with a common trunk. And, as a working hypothesis, it has helped them discover even deeper branches

Really all they have is a bunch if different trees. And since they are all trees the inference is they all came from a common tree. That's all they have. Similarities and commonalitiesz facts that they interpret to mean there is a common tree trunk.

 

[rjs330]

That doesn't cut it. Whatever some Christians might believe about the Bible, from the scientific standpoint it's nothing but an old book of stories. A book is not evidence of anything. A scientist doesn't think any more of the Bible as evidence of creation than he does of Origin of Species as evidence of evolution.

Furthermore, you talk about "common design" and "common descent" as if they were mutually exclusive alternatives. They're not, and you are going to have to figure out which one you want to talk about.

Thirdly, there is at present no coherent theory of special creation I don't think that creationists have paid much attention to this, as they seem to suffer under the strange delusion that all they have to do is impeach evolution and creationism will triumph, but that's not how it works. If you overturn the theory of evolution (which is always possible, being that it's a scientific theory) all you will have is an overturned theory. Right now you have nothing to replace it with but a Bible story; there's not even a shadow of a replacement theory.

Yes there is it's called reality. Reality is and can be proven yes proven that all things have commonality. It can also be proven that all things have DNA which shows what something is and what it is not. You replace evolution with reality. The real problem is and you said it, people will not accept that the Bible is true . So they will always be looking for an alternative. Because the moment you recognize design you MUST acknowledge a designer. And you may acknowledge that, but take a look at those you have partnered with. They do not and will not no matter what.

 

[Speedwell]

Really all they have is a bunch if different trees. And since they are all trees the inference is they all came from a common tree. That's all they have. Similarities and commonalitiesz facts that they interpret to mean there is a common tree trunk.

But they're digging down and beginning to find what looks like an underground network of branches connecting the trees. They infer that all of the branches stem from a single trunk and there is no reason not to. At the end of the day they may find that there is more than one trunk, but as a working hypothesis there is nothing wrong with the single trunk inference.