Where are your goalposts?

[Matthewj1985]

Where are your goalpost for accepting evolution? I hear a lot of talk about creationist "moving the goalposts" and I would like to know where you guys set it. What proof would you require to accept evolution?

 

[busterdog]

Where are your goalpost for accepting evolution? I hear a lot of talk about creationist "moving the goalposts" and I would like to know where you guys set it. What proof would you require to accept evolution?

This is going to be a bit flip, in the interests of my own time this morning. I need to practice some worship on the guitar.

Most proofs for Darwinism only seem to make sense if you assume that there is no other explanation. If you assume that God is not the creator, couldnt do something very quickly, or woundnt be so mean as to lead you on, or something like that, most Darwinism seems like it has been "proved", but only if you leave out these other factors. It is easy for you to leave out these other factors if you are of the Darwinist faith. As a creationist, I cant imagine why you would, regardless of whether they conform to scientific method chic.

And also, pretty much every tenet of Darwinism has been attacked and debunked by conventional science itself -- all without really allowing the ultimate conclusion to be publickly lowered to the status of a doubtful hypothesis. In law, we dont allow an "expert" to testify that John Q was most at fault for the traffic accident, as in reaching the ultimate conclusion. THat is the jury's job. The experts can only testify to particular standards outside of the ken of the average juror (ie, the standard of care and procedures required, for example, of a professional, commercial truck driver). Darwinism has suffered on in that most of the particular and sophisticated grounds for the theory have been undermined, yet the ultimate conclusion that is easily addressed by common sense or the reasoning of the average person is left intact as if it were some holy commandment from God.

I dont think we are the ones moving the goalposts. That is why we now have neoDarwinism.

 

[mark kennedy]

Where are your goalpost for accepting evolution? I hear a lot of talk about creationist "moving the goalposts" and I would like to know where you guys set it. What proof would you require to accept evolution?

The demonstrated or directly observed evidence that qualifies it or refutes it. Darwinism does not rely on empirical evidence and never leaves open the question of whether or not we were created.

"The number of rational hypotheses that can explain any given phenomenon is infinite."...The law is completely nihilistic. It is a catastrophic logical disproof of the general validity of all scientific method!. About this Einstein had said, "Evolution has shown that at any given moment out of all conceivable constructions a single one has always proved itself absolutely superior to the rest," ... to Phædrus... To state that would annihilate the most basic presumption of all science! Through...theories and hypotheses, it is science itself that is leading mankind from single absolute truths to multiple, indeterminate, relative ones...Scientifically produced antiscience...chaos. (Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, Pirsig)​

The real question is whether or not there are any goal post for creationists at all.

 

[Biblewriter]

I dont think we are the ones moving the goalposts. That is why we now have neoDarwinism.

That could not be more correct.

Evolutionists have even changed the definition of evolution so they can demonstrate it. They now say it is a change in the porportional distribution of alles.

But this leaves out the need for new beneficial alles arise, a task that is absolutely required for evolution to proceed.

 

[vossler]

What an interesting metaphor, goalposts. I actually like it!

The goalposts for all Christians have been and always will be the Word of God. Unlike so many other things it is the one and only thing that will never change. What's really interesting though is your statement that implies "creationist moving the goalposts." Our goalposts have never changed, we're constantly defending them.

 

[laptoppop]

Amen. Its oxymoronic to talk about "moving" goalposts. I think you are trying to ask in a different way - what would it take for us to adopt the consensus evolutionary view? It is a reasonable question -- but not one that is easy to answer.

Thanks BTW, Matthew for a much more reasonable thread title.

From the creationist perspective, there are a number of witnesses all standing in harmony testifying together.

First you have the first witness: the plain reading of the Scriptures. Starting with the assumption that a living loving God desires to communicate to us through His word - it is hard to dismiss the various scriptures regarding creation, Adam, the flood, etc. Each of these has not just physical but theological meaning. If one removes the physical appearance of the first Adam, then the atonement of the second Adam (Jesus) becomes stranger. Denial of the flood and uniformitarian interpretation of geology is specifically mentioned in scripture as a sign of the end times.

For me, a lot of my emphasis is geology. Nobody denies the presence of massive intercontinental formations. Nobody denies that most of them are formed in a watery (flood) environment. Nobody denies the common presence of strata "out of order" -- i.e. not in the "expected" order. There's a whole set of terminology to explain them - overthrusts, underthrusts, intrusions, etc. AND there's a whole set of problems with trying to explain them away. So the second of my witnesses is geological evidence. HUGE geological evidence. A global flood is able to explain just how these formations came about. Other explanations have serious problems.

Here comes another witness - new to the scene. This witness testifies of the marvelous complexity that God put into each cell of every body. Man, for all his so-called wisdom, has never been able to make a self-replicating machine. God does it all the time in our cells. The explanations I've seen about how these cellular machines came about are almost laughable, and are not "scientific" in that they are not demonstrable today. (Note that I have no problem with history being undemonstratable, i.e. unscientific -- but if something claims science as its base, it needs to be supportable)

There are many other witnesses -- from DNA (Ask Mark about brain evolution), or from mutational statistics (read the Edge of Evolution by Behe), on and on.

These witnesses are shouting in harmony to the glory of God about His marvelous creative design and engineering.

If I may ask -- where are your goalposts? What would it take for you to open your ears to God's witnesses?

 

[The Barbarian]

I dont think we are the ones moving the goalposts.

Regrettably, moving goalposts is an old creationist tradition. Not long ago, a creationist said he'd become an evolutionist if anyone could show him an observed example of a new structure evolving.

I showed him the evolution of a cecal valve in a population of lizards that allowed them to change from mainly carnivorous to mainly herbivorous.

His reply was that he meant a structure too complex to evolve in a human lifetime. That kind of thing.

That is why we now have neoDarwinism.

It probably seems like cheating to creationists. In science, when the evidence indcates something wrong with a theory, it is modified or discarded as necessary. In creationism, the evidence has to be modified to fit the doctrine.


​

Evolutionists have even changed the definition of evolution so they can demonstrate it. They now say it is a change in the porportional distribution of alles.

Since I was first in college (1965), it's been "a change in allele frequency over time."

But this leaves out the need for new beneficial alles arise, a task that is absolutely required for evolution to proceed.

Generally, this procedes by gene duplication, followed by modification of one of the copies. There's a large number of known beneficial mutations. Would you like to learn about some of them? Keep in mind, there are a number of ways new alleles can form, and since genetics was integrated into evolutionary theory, they are part of the theory.

 

[busterdog]

Regrettably, moving goalposts is an old creationist tradition. Not long ago, a creationist said he'd become an evolutionist if anyone could show him an observed example of a new structure evolving.

I showed him the evolution of a cecal valve in a population of lizards that allowed them to change from mainly carnivorous to mainly herbivorous.

His reply was that he meant a structure too complex to evolve in a human lifetime. That kind of thing.

'

Except you didnt prove it happened slowly. You simply assume that it must because that best fits your narrow slice of observed reality.

The woodpecker suggests a similar evolution toward a carnivorous trait. We accept that evolution happens. We do not assume that it is the origin of species, which has not been demonstrated. And yes, I know about the morphology of reproduction that seems to look like speciation, without being speciation.

It probably seems like cheating to creationists. In science, when the evidence indcates something wrong with a theory, it is modified or discarded as necessary. In creationism, the evidence has to be modified to fit the doctrine.

Except that to evolutionist, they are the only ones allowed to evolved their science. We all understand the why and how of neoDarwinism, which has stumbled and backpedalled toward a radical change in worldview. Try looking at creationism with the same generosity. Is that even possible?


​

Since I was first in college (1965), it's been "a change in allele frequency over time."

Generally, this procedes by gene duplication, followed by modification of one of the copies. There's a large number of known beneficial mutations. Would you like to learn about some of them? Keep in mind, there are a number of ways new alleles can form, and since genetics was integrated into evolutionary theory, they are part of the theory.

'


Except that neoDarwinism says that there arent enough of them for real evolution to happen with the very few billions of available years. Thus, neoDarwinism appeals to unknown but inherent properties to solve the improbabilities. And then it assumes that this philosophical generosity is radically different that creationism.

 

[Matthewj1985]

Amen. Its oxymoronic to talk about "moving" goalposts. I think you are trying to ask in a different way - what would it take for us to adopt the consensus evolutionary view? It is a reasonable question -- but not one that is easy to answer.

Thanks BTW, Matthew for a much more reasonable thread title.

From the creationist perspective, there are a number of witnesses all standing in harmony testifying together.

First you have the first witness: the plain reading of the Scriptures. Starting with the assumption that a living loving God desires to communicate to us through His word - it is hard to dismiss the various scriptures regarding creation, Adam, the flood, etc. Each of these has not just physical but theological meaning. If one removes the physical appearance of the first Adam, then the atonement of the second Adam (Jesus) becomes stranger. Denial of the flood and uniformitarian interpretation of geology is specifically mentioned in scripture as a sign of the end times.

For me, a lot of my emphasis is geology. Nobody denies the presence of massive intercontinental formations. Nobody denies that most of them are formed in a watery (flood) environment. Nobody denies the common presence of strata "out of order" -- i.e. not in the "expected" order. There's a whole set of terminology to explain them - overthrusts, underthrusts, intrusions, etc. AND there's a whole set of problems with trying to explain them away. So the second of my witnesses is geological evidence. HUGE geological evidence. A global flood is able to explain just how these formations came about. Other explanations have serious problems.

Here comes another witness - new to the scene. This witness testifies of the marvelous complexity that God put into each cell of every body. Man, for all his so-called wisdom, has never been able to make a self-replicating machine. God does it all the time in our cells. The explanations I've seen about how these cellular machines came about are almost laughable, and are not "scientific" in that they are not demonstrable today. (Note that I have no problem with history being undemonstratable, i.e. unscientific -- but if something claims science as its base, it needs to be supportable)

There are many other witnesses -- from DNA (Ask Mark about brain evolution), or from mutational statistics (read the Edge of Evolution by Behe), on and on.

These witnesses are shouting in harmony to the glory of God about His marvelous creative design and engineering.

If I may ask -- where are your goalposts? What would it take for you to open your ears to God's witnesses?

The idea of "moving goalposts" refers to many creationist saying things like "if you could show me just one transitional fossil then I would be an evolutionist". The creationist is then show a series of fossils, all of them are a lot a like but each has a different change, the creationist is then told that these were found in the same order in the strata so that the one who is changed the least is the oldest. That is clear proof of a transitional fossil, so what does the creationist do? "Well, you still can't have nothing explode and create everything, stop ignoring God's word!!!!"

I see this a lot, it does happen and is even commonplace on youtube, so I would not call it oxymoronic.

For me to become a creationist I would have to see proof that has passed peer review by secular scientist. Frankly I have seen too many "creation scientist" who are way too comfortable teaching things that have been show to them to be false many times. I also don't buy into the "global scientific conspiracy" and if the evidence were to point to God, I think scientist all over the world would admit this. So not only would I need proof that evolution was false (remember just because evolution is false doesn't automatically make creation correct) but also proof that the earth is only 6000 years old (radiocarbon dated of course).

 

[juvenissun]

Where are your goalpost for accepting evolution? I hear a lot of talk about creationist "moving the goalposts" and I would like to know where you guys set it. What proof would you require to accept evolution?

You tell me what evolution is, then I will tell you what am I looking for.

 

[juvenissun]

​

Since I was first in college (1965), it's been "a change in allele frequency over time."

Can you relate this definition to the emergence of new species? Should there be a minimum amount of time for speciation to happen due to the "evolution" process as you define it?

Of course, we need to agree on what is speciation too. That might be counted as a shift of goalpost. But, no matter what the post is, the argument has to start at some place where there is no post allowed to shift.

 

[Matthewj1985]

You tell me what evolution is, then I will tell you what am I looking for.

The mechanism that describes the diversity of life on earth today. Basically how we got from single cells to where we are today. We are talking about the strictly the biological sense and not including the creation of "life". So no Big Bang, no chemical evolution, no abiogenesis, just good old fashioned Darwinian evolution.

 

[juvenissun]

The mechanism that describes the diversity of life on earth today. Basically how we got from single cells to where we are today. We are talking about the strictly the biological sense and not including the creation of "life". So no Big Bang, no chemical evolution, no abiogenesis, just good old fashioned Darwinian evolution.

If so, I like to see a complete mechanism of speciation. To the best, I like to see how did ape evolved to human.

I tell you ahead of time, the evidence of morphological change won't work. Those are features, not mechanism.

 

[busterdog]

The idea of "moving goalposts" refers to many creationist saying things like "if you could show me just one transitional fossil then I would be an evolutionist". The creationist is then show a series of fossils, all of them are a lot a like but each has a different change, the creationist is then told that these were found in the same order in the strata so that the one who is changed the least is the oldest. That is clear proof of a transitional fossil, so what does the creationist do? "Well, you still can't have nothing explode and create everything, stop ignoring God's word!!!!"

Where does this come from? Who said give me one transitional fossil and that is all I need? Must we be judged by whoever that is?

In the debate involving Belinsky, Wm. F. Buckley et al., there was one line of animal supposedly in which the transitional fossils were pretty detailed. The allegation of the evolutionist was that to reach any goal, you go one step at a time and here was the first couple of steps from which we extrapolate toward ultimate arrival at the goal of proving evolution. The man (some American evolutionist who wrote a biology textbook) said that to get to get across the room you go one step at a time. There was much applause. Belinsky, after arguing incessantly about the lack of transitional forms, realized he had lost the rhetorical advantage.

The metaphor used, albeit successfully, does clash with your own in the OP.

If we are extrapolating based upon transitional forms, how does that "cross the goal line?" Arent you extrapolating based upon the fact that you have gotten to the 50 yard line? Isnt evolution saying that the missing evidence of transitional forms for all the other species is irrelevant because for some species we have lots of fossils (well, of one species or many species?).

How about this, I will even concede the a touchdown or two to evolution with some transitional fossils. How is that the whole game?

And again, who said that SOME transitional fossils are all that every creationist (or an agnostic like Belinsky) ever needs to be convinced?

I see this a lot, it does happen and is even commonplace on youtube, so I would not call it oxymoronic.

For me to become a creationist I would have to see proof that has passed peer review by secular scientist. Frankly I have seen too many "creation scientist" who are way too comfortable teaching things that have been show to them to be false many times. I also don't buy into the "global scientific conspiracy" and if the evidence were to point to God, I think scientist all over the world would admit this. So not only would I need proof that evolution was false (remember just because evolution is false doesn't automatically make creation correct) but also proof that the earth is only 6000 years old (radiocarbon dated of course).

Yes, there are many parrots out there teaching creationism. I see doubtful "proof" of a young earth repeated often, like the one about the moon dust and Apollo 11. But, that is also true of conventional science in many areas. How about index fossil. Lots of parrots are using that as proof. The premises of radiocarbon dating are parroted constantly, even when conventional physics starts to acknowledge the theoretical possibility, and some evidence, of changing physical constants -- Polly still wants a cracker.

As for creationist teaching things that are false, is all of evolutionary science to concede their case because Haeckel is still in some old text books? Or because Darwin was wrong and random mutation is an insufficient engine for the origin of species?

 

[Matthewj1985]

If so, I like to see a complete mechanism of speciation. To the best, I like to see how did ape evolved to human.

I tell you ahead of time, the evidence of morphological change won't work. Those are features, not mechanism.

What do you mean? The series of fossilized bones that show a whole heck of a lot of the "ape to man" species transition is not enough? I am not being condescending, just trying to see your point of view on this. I am really shocked that I didn't get a lot of people telling me that nothing in the world would change their mind since they believe the bible over reality. I really just wanted to see where everyone sat and see who was and who was not open minded.

 

[busterdog]

If so, I like to see a complete mechanism of speciation. To the best, I like to see how did ape evolved to human.

I tell you ahead of time, the evidence of morphological change won't work. Those are features, not mechanism.

You are saying this is one problem for "transitional fossils?"

I think the OP may have a point in that the creationists said that there is no new genome, no speciation no transitional fossils. But they what we end up with is some evidence of the same, or steps toward the same, but never a full and complete case either way. So, the evidence ends up pushing the debate toward the gray. The evidence is debatable in terms of what it means, but the original question sounded like the creationist where saying that it is black and white, there is nothing that looks like a transitional fossil. Then we have something debatable and complicted, which makes the original creationist assertion look naive. ANd indeed, it was naive -- everything that precedes a new discovery is always relatively naive -- but naivete in creationism does not prove the case for the evolutionist.

 

[Matthewj1985]

Where does this come from? Who said give me one transitional fossil and that is all I need? Must we be judged by whoever that is?

No, but the "there are no transitional fossils" seems to be a pretty common theme, heck search youtube and see what you get, it is not exactly an isolated incident. I started this thread to figure out where your own goalposts are set.

In the debate involving Belinsky, Wm. F. Buckley et al., there was one line of animal supposedly in which the transitional fossils were pretty detailed. The allegation of the evolutionist was that to reach any goal, you go one step at a time and here was the first couple of steps from which we extrapolate toward ultimate arrival at the goal of proving evolution. The man (some American evolutionist who wrote a biology textbook) said that to get to get across the room you go one step at a time. There was much applause. Belinsky, after arguing incessantly about the lack of transitional forms, realized he had lost the rhetorical advantage.

You might be talking about Ken Miller. He testified in the Dover trial against ID and is a practicing Catholic. I really don't see what that paragraph has to do with anything other than the old tired lie of "there are no transitional fossils" being exposed for what it is.

The metaphor used, albeit successfully, does clash with your own in the OP.

If we are extrapolating based upon transitional forms, how does that "cross the goal line?" Arent you extrapolating based upon the fact that you have gotten to the 50 yard line? Isnt evolution saying that the missing evidence of transitional forms for all the other species is irrelevant because for some species we have lots of fossils (well, of one species or many species?).

How about this, I will even concede the a touchdown or two to evolution with some transitional fossils. How is that the whole game?

I am really having a hard time following what you are talking about here. Could you please restate it without all the metaphor?

And again, who said that SOME transitional fossils was every creationist ever needed to be convinced?

No one, it was simply an example I used. I posted this thread to find out what it would take for you personally to become an evolutionist.

Yes, there are many parrots out there teaching creationism. But, that is also true of conventional science in some areas.

As for creationist teaching things that are false, is all of evolutionary science to concede their case because Haeckel is still in some old text books? Or because Darwin was wrong and random mutation is an insufficient engine for the origin of species?

I am again having a hard time following you. The biggest difference I see between Haeckel's drawings and modern creationist lies is that scientist corrected Haeckel and are ashamed when they encounter hoaxes. I have yet to hear a creationist call out another on scientific errors, then again, I guess that would be like arguing with a Muslim that your God could beat up their God.

 

[busterdog]

No, but the "there are no transitional fossils" seems to be a pretty common theme, heck search youtube and see what you get, it is not exactly an isolated incident. I started this thread to figure out where your own goalposts are set.

I think this argument works better for you if you can make sure that no critic of evolution can be allowed to say "not enough transitional fossils" as opposed to "no transitional fossils." The latter helps you, the former doesnt. The latter helps you demonize, the former shows the parties to be engaged in debate.

Is Richard Belinsky a liar because he finds grossly insufficient evidence of transitional forms? Is he a Moron or a religious nut?

You might be talking about Ken Miller. He testified in the Dover trial against ID and is a practicing Catholic. I really don't see what that paragraph has to do with anything other than the old tired lie of "there are no transitional fossils" being exposed for what it is.

The OP assumes that creationism has established a goal post and evolutionists have gone through it. Miller states, in essence (always a red flag), that evolution extrapolates its final victory in making its case by transitional fossils, not that it has actually done so, except for a few isolated species.

No one, it was simply an example I used. I posted this thread to find out what it would take for you personally to become an evolutionist.

Its pretty hard to deal with that hypothetically.

I see all the science making the odds longer the deeper science looks at every issue. I suppose that trend would have to reverse for starters. Doubt is encroaching on physical constants. That potentially trashes your radiocarbon dating -- but, immediately, it shows growing doubt on the pillars of conventional wisdom on these subjects.

I am again having a hard time following you. The biggest difference I see between Haeckel's drawings and modern creationist lies is that scientist corrected Haeckel and are ashamed when they encounter hoaxes. I have yet to hear a creationist call out another on scientific errors, then again, I guess that would be like arguing with a Muslim that your God could beat up their God.

Oh. Now I see. All the evil resides in creationism. Thank you for clearing that up.

One thing that might help in converting me would be to show that you understand and can empathize with creationism. So far, you arent.

 

[juvenissun]

What do you mean? The series of fossilized bones that show a whole heck of a lot of the "ape to man" species transition is not enough? I am not being condescending, just trying to see your point of view on this. I am really shocked that I didn't get a lot of people telling me that nothing in the world would change their mind since they believe the bible over reality. I really just wanted to see where everyone sat and see who was and who was not open minded.

No. it is not enough. The morphological change never shows a smooth curve of change. Nearly in all cases, they show stepwise changes.

 

[busterdog]

Originally Posted by Matthewj1985

What do you mean? The series of fossilized bones that show a whole heck of a lot of the "ape to man" species transition is not enough? I am not being condescending, just trying to see your point of view on this. I am really shocked that I didn't get a lot of people telling me that nothing in the world would change their mind since they believe the bible over reality. I really just wanted to see where everyone sat and see who was and who was not open minded.
​

Actually, you are not succeeding if you want to avoid appearing to be condescending. Your phrase, the "lies of creationists" tells us where you are coming from.

I am certainly close-minded. From what I can see, you would seem to think that only an idiot would be open minded about some things. Isnt being closed-minded a good thing on the right issues? Is it even possible to be completely open-minded (and of course it isnt if you have a pulse).

As for choosing revelation over "reality", we have been through this several times before your posts. Pretty clearly we do choose the revelation of scripture over what our faulty senses and scientists tell us. How many times does ordinary reason and human consensus have to be wrong before we dont elevate it over revelation? You tell, how many times? You dont have an answer I expect. I have an answer. The answer is the case for revelation being better is overwhelming, and most of the evidence is deliberated avoided by the acadamies of the world. The usual answer is that when revelation alleged trumps "reality" its all a pack of lies, except that those calling it lies are never willing to put themselves in the position to test that theory.

Now, I see no problem in putting conventional science and creation science on a roughly equivalent and level playing field, with the result being that conventional science just raises many more doubts than it resolves. Creationist science doesnt prove anything conclusively, but it does reveal the massive holes in conventional assumptions. But of course, you simply call conventional science reality as if all these issues have already been decided. How sad.

And I am quite unashamed to say that the revelation of scripture is a far better gauge for just about everything and I pity those who dont believe it. The evidence justifies that position and the Bible announces it.

You need to see the world. Get out of your usual environment. There is much happening in the world. Lots of it is even on youtube for goodness sake.

You want "reality?" Go see the Church work in countries where they dont even have electricity most of the time, let alone microscopes and laboratories. Go see what Jesus does when people have nothing. God talks to those people. They go on revelation, on what He says, not what they see. Not your reality.