proving evolution as just a "theory"

[sfs]

And you're technically wrong...when we examine the cosmos, we are not looking at the 'present'...we are seeing it from various eras of the past...

Some of it much longer ago than evolutionary biology deals with. All observation is actually of things that happened in the past, by the time the information gets to the observer.

 

[sfs]

It's a matter of both plausibility / explanatory power and the belief system that is basically mandatory in popular science.

It's the explanatory power that matters to scientists, and that's what's lacking in creationism. I don't care whether your explanation includes the supernatural or not. Just offer me a model that does as good a job as common descent in explaining data and I'll listen.

 

[sfs]

We all have the same evidence to work with when we want to assess if the more plausible / probably explanation is creation or 'chance'.

So why don't creationists use that evidence?

 

[Jimmy D]

Thatś nonsense.
And still irrelevant.Who taught you this drivel?
It's not even relevant.
You're probably referring to your idea that there are numerous creation stories.
You oppose this to your assumption that there is only one scientific explanation.

In fact there is only a few creation stories, and the major one is Genesis.
But that doesn't even matter, because none of those is a scientific account of creation, it's mainly a statement, a claim laid by God, in case of Genesis a claim by YHWH Elohim, the God of Abraham.

We all have the same evidence to work with when we want to assess if the more plausible / probably explanation is creation or 'chance'.

The natural sciences and scientists aren't unanimous in their views on the matter either.
But, they got themselves stuck in a position that follows the idea of random mutations (that didn't get corrected) and natural selection as the means by which it must have happened.
Now nobody with a little knowledge about this disputes that mutation and selection has an influence, but expecting miracles from it is another story.

The OP was looking for convincing arguments, I'm not sure this qualifies.

 

[Allandavid]

Thatś nonsense.
And still irrelevant.Who taught you this drivel?
It's not even relevant.
You're probably referring to your idea that there are numerous creation stories.
You oppose this to your assumption that there is only one scientific explanation.

In fact there is only a few creation stories, and the major one is Genesis.
But that doesn't even matter, because none of those is a scientific account of creation, it's mainly a statement, a claim laid by God, in case of Genesis a claim by YHWH Elohim, the God of Abraham.

We all have the same evidence to work with when we want to assess if the more plausible / probably explanation is creation or 'chance'.

The natural sciences and scientists aren't unanimous in their views on the matter either.
But, they got themselves stuck in a position that follows the idea of random mutations (that didn't get corrected) and natural selection as the means by which it must have happened.
Now nobody with a little knowledge about this disputes that mutation and selection has an influence, but expecting miracles from it is another story.

No...like all creation stories, the Genesis one is not made by a god....it's made by men claiming to speak for a god.

So you have a claim of a claim...and not a whiff of any supporting evidence.

 

[Hieronymus]

And you're technically wrong...when we examine the cosmos, we are not looking at the 'present'...we are seeing it from various eras of the past...

Nice try, but you were referring to our solar system.

Oh, but the evidence is very much in the 'present' and grows, day by day. Each new fossil discovery, each new breakthrough in DNA research, each new application of evolutionary theory in medicine, all contribute to a sounder understanding of evolution and the theory that explains it.

Only when you're very selective in picking your evidence and looking at it through the naturalistic filter.
What is discovered about DNA actually points to intelligent design and manufacturing.
But your peers avoid that and don't tell you about it.
They have no choice if they want to maintain their careers and credibility among their peers.

Sure, they actively gather evidence to support their beliefs, so the amount increases.
But the main questions remain unanswered.
ToE has no explanation for (the origins of) the mind boggling complexity and purposefulness we see in living nature (as a whole or in organs and organelles).

The last point reminds me of a question I've seen asked...

Given that many treatments for debilitating and fatal diseases have as their foundation an application of evolutionary theory, can I assume that you would let a loved one die, rather than subjecting them to this scientific 'hoax'...?

That's not even true.
They have their foundation in medicine and biology, often through trial and error, usually through discovery of how organisms work.

 

[pitabread]

That's just your irrelevant opinion, based on hear say of slanderous theophobes.

No, it's pretty much my experience debating this stuff for over a decade. And when it comes to applied sciences, particularly applied evolution (including phylogenetics, aka shared ancestry), creationists have no answers for that.

 

[driewerf]

Very difficult, because practically all people have been brainwashed for decades into believing that evolution:
a] is a scientific theory
b] is supported by lots and lots of evidence
c] is not just a naturalistic belief.
d] is something everybody with enough knowledge subscribes to
e] has no serious scientific gaps and problems.
f] etcetera.....


Good luck.

So, okay the nowadays scientist accepts the ToE just because he's brainwashed.
But that raises the question why the 19th century scientists accepted Darwin's theory so easily. Look at the facts in the 19th century (and previous) the binlical creation and the fixity of species was accepted as fact. Came Darwin and his "Origin of Species" and lo and behold, the entire scientific community had accepted the ToE by the turn of the century.
How do you explain that? Brainwashing will not do, it, for if brainwashed they were, it was in creationism.

 

[Hieronymus]

No...like all creation stories, the Genesis one is not made by a god....it's made by men claiming to speak for a god.

In Genesis and throughout the Bible the claim is laid by God.
Yes, this is written down by men.
The question we're wrestling with is if it is true or not.
And in this specific case the question is if everything came about by chance or by intelligence.
It's not relevant what Genesis says, because it's not a scientific analyses / account.
You can use it as a frame of reference though, if that's what you want to do.

So you have a claim of a claim...and not a whiff of any supporting evidence.

It's still irrelevant.
You're trying to change the subject.
And to boot, you're guilty of the same thing.
You take a 19th century conjecture for granted.

 

[sfs]

Only when you're very selective in picking your evidence and looking at it through the naturalistic filter.

Skip the naturalistic filter. Just offer a better explanation. Creationists say over and over again that we're all looking at the same data, but just offering different explanations. But they never get around to the explaining part.

You're doing it too. You're sure creationism offers a good explanation for the data, even though you have no idea what the data looks like or how creationism would explain it. How is this supposed to convince anyone? Heck, how do you convince yourself?

What is discovered about DNA actually points to intelligent design and manufacturing.
But your peers avoid that and don't tell you about it.

It's certainly news to me.

 

[sfs]

And in this specific case the question is if everything came about by chance or by intelligence.

No, the specific question in this thread was whether evolution was true or not.

 

[driewerf]

No.
Evolution as in the origins of species is historical, astronomy is looking at the present.
You know this.

LOL, if there is one science looking into the past...

 

[pitabread]

What is discovered about DNA actually points to intelligent design and manufacturing.

Not really. In fact, pretty much every argument in this regard usually just boils down to an argument from incredulity.

If there really were evidence for intelligent design in DNA, the discoverer of such evidence would have their Nobel Prize by now.

 

[driewerf]

No, the specific question in this thread was whether evolution was true or not.

Actually, the OP spoke of convincing her friend of the truth of the christian way. Somehow, the OP is convinced that the ToE is a stumbling block for this christian way.

 

[Hieronymus]

No, it's pretty much my experience debating this stuff for over a decade. And when it comes to applied sciences, particularly applied evolution (including phylogenetics, aka shared ancestry), creationists have no answers for that.

It is an assumption that phylogenetics means shared ancestry.
I don't share that assumption.
It is however a decent piece of evidence you can use for making a case for evolution.
And maybe it does point to common ancestry in certain cases, but then there is still a gap in the naturalistic explanation when it comes to the origins of the necessary new data for specific traits like organs.
Corrupting data and copying what still runs well enough is hardly an explanation for genius solutions like we discover in living nature.

 

[Hieronymus]

Not really. In fact, pretty much every argument in this regard usually just boils down to an argument from incredulity.

That's just fried air.

If there really were evidence for intelligent design in DNA, the discoverer of such evidence would have their Nobel Prize by now.

That's highly naive.

 

[sfs]

Actually, the OP spoke of convincing her friend of the truth of the christian way. Somehow, the OP is convinced that the ToE is a stumbling block for this christian way.

What she was looking for was a response to the friend's question about evolution (and dinosaurs). The correct response is that evolution is compatible with Christianity and with the existence of an intelligent designer. So for this poster to frame the question as intelligence vs chance is going in a very different direction.

 

[sfs]

It is an assumption that phylogenetics means shared ancestry.

No, shared ancestry is a conclusion based on the existence of consistent phylogenies (among other pieces of evidence).

It is however a decent piece of evidence you can use for making a case for evolution.
And maybe it does point to common ancestry in certain cases

Where does it stop being evidence for common ancestry?

but then there is still a gap in the naturalistic explanation when it comes to the origins of the necessary new data for specific traits like organs.
Corrupting data and copying what still runs well enough is hardly an explanation for genius solutions like we discover in living nature.

Saying that doesn't make it so.

 

[lesliedellow]

That's just fried air.That's highly naive.

In addition to the Nobel Prize, he could expect a nice fat cheque from the Templeton Foundation (unless you think they are secretly atheists).

 

[lesliedellow]

Saying that doesn't make it so.

If you are a creationist, saying something enough times is the only thing necessary to transform fiction into fact, and fact into fiction.

 

[Hieronymus]

So, okay the nowadays scientist accepts the ToE just because he's brainwashed.

That's not really what i wrote, is it?
PEOPLE accept it because it's force fed to us for decades.
Scientists can have a career in it when they subscribe to it.

But that raises the question why the 19th century scientists accepted Darwin's theory so easily. Look at the facts in the 19th century (and previous) the binlical creation and the fixity of species was accepted as fact. Came Darwin and his "Origin of Species" and lo and behold, the entire scientific community had accepted the ToE by the turn of the century.

It's the only natural explanation, there's not much choice for natural science.

How do you explain that? Brainwashing will not do, it, for if brainwashed they were, it was in creationism.

That may be true, however by default the amount of complexity as we find in our reality (living nature in particular) is explained best by a capable intelligence with a will and a goal, rather than by unintentional dead forces of nature.
But nowadays the tables have turned.
Maybe a counter reaction to the theism of history, but naturalism is the new religion or 'Knowledge'
I expect that it will eventually merge with animism / pantheism. That's just a matter of time i.m.o.
Actually, the idea of evolution (in a broader sense) (re)gained popularity among the elite in the days of Darwin.
But maybe a worldwide revelation of some sorts will take place to shift the consensus to the next thing.
Who knows?

Let's not forget that this is all a human endeavour to make sense of our reality.
And it's human nature to want to be free from God.
People would rather be their own gods themselves.
Especially in our (former Christian) culture it is popular to believe / assume / aspire we are our own masters, either individually or as a community.

 

[pitabread]

It is an assumption that phylogenetics means shared ancestry.

It's not an assumption. It's the very definition of phylogenetics.

It is however a decent piece of evidence you can use for making a case for evolution.

You seem to be misunderstanding what I'm talking about.

Biologists have moved well past making the case for evolution and into taking that knowledge and using it for practical applications.

For example if you look up things like 'phylogenetic shadowing' and 'phylogenetic footprinting', you'll find techniques used in modern genomics that directly apply data from phylogenetic trees. And this data is being applied to aid in the discovery of functional regions of the genome or prediction of gene functions.

Here's an example: Phylogenetic Shadowing of Primate Sequences to Find Functional Regions of the Human Genome | Science

Heck, there are even patents based on applied evolutionary biology.

And maybe it does point to common ancestry in certain cases, but then there is still a gap in the naturalistic explanation when it comes to the origins of the necessary new data for specific traits like organs.
Corrupting data and copying what still runs well enough is hardly an explanation for genius solutions like we discover in living nature.

What 'new data' are you talking about? If you're talking about DNA sequences, we already know perfectly well how novel DNA arises: replication and variation/mutation.