Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
The Coccyx
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pshun2404" data-source="post: 72022220" data-attributes="member: 301030"><p>I agree that fossils are extremely rare YET for many many decades while EB’s insisted on the ancestor of the gaps they had no examples whatsoever (insisting the fossil record actually demonstrates their theory when as they now admit it does not...in fact cannot). Thank you. It is refreshing but sadly the insistence it was true (and taught as true) was being programmed in (I have given so many examples of how this takes place even now on so many unproven claims).</p><p></p><p>Now you mentioned “<em>Comparative anatomy, comparative genetics, phylogenies</em>” as offering far more proof but though it CAN BE interpreted in this way much of it is interpretation explained to fit what was already believed to be true (thus the conclusion interpreted the data not the data forming a conclusion which IMO is backwards thinking for scientists).</p><p></p><p>You later say “<em>It's inferred from DNA evidence, comparative anatomy, embryonic development</em>” but since inference is largely subjective and I no longer see that as the ONLY explanation for these things, I must conclude they are not established facts. If indisputable then okay, but they are not.</p><p></p><p>So feel free to choose one to discuss (one at a time)</p><p></p><p>Then you say that Evolution “<em>makes predictions that reach beyond biology, like for example that the earth must be old and not young</em>” but it really is a Johnny come lately since many believed the earth to be old for 1,000s of years before the ToE. In fact, long before the wooden literalist interpretation of Genesis as well. So Evolution neither predicted what was already believed nor demonstrated what was already believed. That is simply a misnomer.</p><p></p><p>And when I said “<em>In the rules of evidence and proof when it is found that some of the evidence has been shown to be questionable or intentionally tainted then ALL the evidence becomes questionable and must be shown to be actual</em>.” It is NOT ludicrous at all it is the way we prove things (perhaps you are familiar with falsifiability). <strong><em>If something (anything) can be shown to not necessarily have to have happened in the way claimed, then it merits being questioned</em></strong>. This, again in fact, is one of the reasonings used by atheists in arguing against people who believe in God (so apply the standard to your own beliefs).</p><p></p><p>For example, Darwin said “<em>, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down</em>“, and IMO this has been demonstrated because of the fossil record you claim NOW is dismissable (yet was relied on for so many decades as proof and taught as proof to innocently inquiring minds for decades). Also we can look at dopaminergic interneurons in the human brain. They do not exist in any apes of any kind (present or in the past). There are NO forerunners...no quasi structures...simply appearing suddenly fully functional in humans! This anatomical factor has been shown by this fact (never taught in schools) to not have been formed “<em>by numerous, successive, slight modifications</em>” (like so many other things, there is not one iota of evidence other than a number of conjectural posturings to SHOW this is the case).</p><p></p><p>So ignoring the POSSIBLE explanations trying to fit the facts into the theory (the narrative attached) and just looking at the data (the fact that it is a purely human factor) shows us we do not have to (and should not) accept the developmental <em>by</em> <em>numerous slight modifications</em> theory. Scientists who are being objective, using actual critical thinking, should not assume this is the case and then find things they can interpret to fit the “belief” (but alas some will do just that and without doubt these will get published and get the grant monies while those against the “belief” will not).</p><p></p><p>This was the best one...” Yes, darwinian evolution was widely accepted as accurate (not "believed" - science doesn't deal in "beliefs") long before we even knew about DNA.”</p><p></p><p>What is so funny here is you must know you are misrepresenting what I said here...I agree that “SCIENCE” tries not to deal with mere belief but SCIENTISTS however (certainly not all) fall into this snare as often as YECs.</p><p></p><p>I already gave examples of this where honest scientists couch their “inferences” in the subjunctive mood (could be, we believe that, might have, and so on) on the other hand others declare these “beliefs” as if they are indisputable facts (which they are not, they are plausibilities).</p><p></p><p>And yes Collins does believe in the “ancestor of the gaps” theory and accepts the interpretive explanations commonly accepted as true and I do not deny the possibility of AoG just not accepting it as true because these things can be given a different narrative.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pshun2404, post: 72022220, member: 301030"] I agree that fossils are extremely rare YET for many many decades while EB’s insisted on the ancestor of the gaps they had no examples whatsoever (insisting the fossil record actually demonstrates their theory when as they now admit it does not...in fact cannot). Thank you. It is refreshing but sadly the insistence it was true (and taught as true) was being programmed in (I have given so many examples of how this takes place even now on so many unproven claims). Now you mentioned “[I]Comparative anatomy, comparative genetics, phylogenies[/I]” as offering far more proof but though it CAN BE interpreted in this way much of it is interpretation explained to fit what was already believed to be true (thus the conclusion interpreted the data not the data forming a conclusion which IMO is backwards thinking for scientists). You later say “[I]It's inferred from DNA evidence, comparative anatomy, embryonic development[/I]” but since inference is largely subjective and I no longer see that as the ONLY explanation for these things, I must conclude they are not established facts. If indisputable then okay, but they are not. So feel free to choose one to discuss (one at a time) Then you say that Evolution “[I]makes predictions that reach beyond biology, like for example that the earth must be old and not young[/I]” but it really is a Johnny come lately since many believed the earth to be old for 1,000s of years before the ToE. In fact, long before the wooden literalist interpretation of Genesis as well. So Evolution neither predicted what was already believed nor demonstrated what was already believed. That is simply a misnomer. And when I said “[I]In the rules of evidence and proof when it is found that some of the evidence has been shown to be questionable or intentionally tainted then ALL the evidence becomes questionable and must be shown to be actual[/I].” It is NOT ludicrous at all it is the way we prove things (perhaps you are familiar with falsifiability). [B][I]If something (anything) can be shown to not necessarily have to have happened in the way claimed, then it merits being questioned[/I][/B]. This, again in fact, is one of the reasonings used by atheists in arguing against people who believe in God (so apply the standard to your own beliefs). For example, Darwin said “[I], “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down[/I]“, and IMO this has been demonstrated because of the fossil record you claim NOW is dismissable (yet was relied on for so many decades as proof and taught as proof to innocently inquiring minds for decades). Also we can look at dopaminergic interneurons in the human brain. They do not exist in any apes of any kind (present or in the past). There are NO forerunners...no quasi structures...simply appearing suddenly fully functional in humans! This anatomical factor has been shown by this fact (never taught in schools) to not have been formed “[I]by numerous, successive, slight modifications[/I]” (like so many other things, there is not one iota of evidence other than a number of conjectural posturings to SHOW this is the case). So ignoring the POSSIBLE explanations trying to fit the facts into the theory (the narrative attached) and just looking at the data (the fact that it is a purely human factor) shows us we do not have to (and should not) accept the developmental [I]by[/I] [I]numerous slight modifications[/I] theory. Scientists who are being objective, using actual critical thinking, should not assume this is the case and then find things they can interpret to fit the “belief” (but alas some will do just that and without doubt these will get published and get the grant monies while those against the “belief” will not). This was the best one...” Yes, darwinian evolution was widely accepted as accurate (not "believed" - science doesn't deal in "beliefs") long before we even knew about DNA.” What is so funny here is you must know you are misrepresenting what I said here...I agree that “SCIENCE” tries not to deal with mere belief but SCIENTISTS however (certainly not all) fall into this snare as often as YECs. I already gave examples of this where honest scientists couch their “inferences” in the subjunctive mood (could be, we believe that, might have, and so on) on the other hand others declare these “beliefs” as if they are indisputable facts (which they are not, they are plausibilities). And yes Collins does believe in the “ancestor of the gaps” theory and accepts the interpretive explanations commonly accepted as true and I do not deny the possibility of AoG just not accepting it as true because these things can be given a different narrative. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
The Coccyx
Top
Bottom