Why Is Darwinism So Dangerous? (5)

[PsychoSarah]

Not a single thing you've reference offers the slightest evidence that humanity is the result of only naturalistic forces acting on an (unknown) single life form from long long ago.

Not a single thing you have said indicates it wasn't. But anyways, it doesn't need to be naturalistic, you asked for evidence that humans arose from single celled organisms and evolutionary processes. There you have it.

 

[justlookinla]

Not a single thing you have said indicates it wasn't. But anyways, it doesn't need to be naturalistic, you asked for evidence that humans arose from single celled organisms and evolutionary processes. There you have it.

Nope, that's not what I've asked. I've asked, many many times now, for evidence that humanity is the result of only, solely, completely, totally naturalistic forces acting on an (unknown) single life form from long long ago.

No evidence has been offered for that particular creationist view.

 

[DerelictJunction]

No, it's a bunch of guesses, not based on observation and experimentation for a truthful conclusion. When one's position is peppered with could be's, maybe's and possibly's, that's a sure indication that the view is subjective.

Then all scientific theories are subjective because none of them have been completely proven if you look at the details.

I've been presented with the claim that humanity is the result of only, entirely, completely, solely naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form (which isn't identified) from long long ago. I've not been presented with evidence for that creationist view.

It is not a creationist view. It is the scien....ya know...why waste the bandwidth, when you will just parrot the same thing back at me.
How about this. You have not offered one reason why your God couldn't have created the human species solely through naturalistic mechanisms using the process of evolution. Additionally, you have not provided one shred of evidence showing that the same God did not create the human species solely through naturalistic mechanisms. Your claims are empty without evidence.

If you are saying the scientific explanation is wrong, then that is a different matter. Would you like to bring up particular areas where it is wrong and provide us with your explanation as to what is wrong with it and what scientists did incorrectly?

I'm saying that the Darwinist creationist model of explaining the variety and complexity of life we see today isn't a scientific creationist view, but is instead a faith-based, inherently atheistic creationist view.

Do ya want a cracker?
I'm not sure you realize this, but that reply wasn't a cogent answer to my question nor an adequate rebuttal to my statements. Are you incapable of defending your contentions with anything other than you repetitive statement about a origins model that doesn't exist in the scientific community and, in fact is a model that you made up in your head?
You are exhibiting the hallmarks of an internet troll.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Nope, that's not what I've asked. I've asked, many many times now, for evidence that humanity is the result of only, solely, completely, totally naturalistic forces acting on an (unknown) single life form from long long ago.

No evidence has been offered for that particular creationist view.

Another lie. You have been presented with multiple references and explanations.

 

[justlookinla]

No, it's a bunch of guesses, not based on observation and experimentation for a truthful conclusion. When one's position is peppered with could be's, maybe's and possibly's, that's a sure indication that the view is subjective.

Then all scientific theories are subjective because none of them have been completely proven if you look at the details.

It is not a creationist view. It is the scien....ya know...why waste the bandwidth, when you will just parrot the same thing back at me.

Yes, why waste the bandwidth, you'll just parrot the same thing back to me.

How about this. You have not offered one reason why your God couldn't have created the human species solely through naturalistic mechanisms using the process of evolution. Additionally, you have not provided one shred of evidence showing that the same God did not create the human species solely through naturalistic mechanisms. Your claims are empty without evidence.

I've repeatedly said my views on creationism are faith-based views. I've also repeatedly pointed out that Darwinist creationism is a faith-based creationist view also.

Do ya want a cracker?
I'm not sure you realize this, but that reply wasn't a cogent answer to my question nor an adequate rebuttal to my statements. Are you incapable of defending your contentions with anything other than you repetitive statement about a origins model that doesn't exist in the scientific community and, in fact is a model that you made up in your head?
You are exhibiting the hallmarks of an internet troll.

Of course you on the other hand do not repeat yourself?

The issue is going to continue to be the issue, the focus is going to continue to be on the Darwinist creationist view that humanity is the creation of entirely natural mechanisms acting on an (unknown) single life form from long long ago.

Mockery, ridicule or personal disparaging will not take the focus from the issue (Darwinist creationism), I assure you.

 

[justlookinla]

Another lie. You have been presented with multiple references and explanations.

Start with the first life form from many many years ago. Identify it.

Go!!

 

[DerelictJunction]

No, it's a bunch of guesses, not based on observation and experimentation for a truthful conclusion. When one's position is peppered with could be's, maybe's and possibly's, that's a sure indication that the view is subjective.

Yes, why waste the bandwidth.

you're right...I will no longer repeat the same thing at you.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Start with the first life form from many many years ago. Identify it.

Go!!

Why is that necessary to understand the process? Is the theory of gravity now void because the source of gravity is not proven?

 

[justlookinla]

Why is that necessary to understand the process? Is the theory of gravity now void because the source of gravity is not proven?

Is that a 'I don't know'?

 

[DerelictJunction]

Is that a 'I don't know'?

I admit that I don't know.
You claim that knowledge is necessary in order to show that humans evolved from a common ancestor. Scientists don't regard that knowledge as necessary to show humans evolved from a common ancestor. So, it is only your requirement and I believe the person who levied that requirement should be able to explain why he believes it is necessary.

The existence of gravitons is not proven but the theory of gravity chugs along without that proof. Do you deny the validity of the theory of gravity based on the lack of proof for the existence of gravitons?

 

[justlookinla]

I admit that I don't know.
You claim that knowledge is necessary in order to show that humans evolved from a common ancestor.

Nope, you keep evading the issue. The issue is with the view that humanity is the result of entirely, solely, completely naturalistic processes acting on a single life form from long long ago.

Scientists don't regard that knowledge as necessary to show humans evolved from a common ancestor. So, it is only your requirement and I believe the person who levied that requirement should be able to explain why he believes it is necessary.

The claim is that humans are the result of only naturalistic processes. Prove it.

The existence of gravitons is not proven but the theory of gravity chugs along without that proof. Do you deny the validity of the theory of gravity based on the lack of proof for the existence of gravitons?

I'm not sure how many times attempts have been made to divert the issue of creationism to something else, but it's happened frequently.

 

[bhsmte]

Another lie. You have been presented with multiple references and explanations.

Don't stop him now, he is on a roll.

 

[bhsmte]

Is that a 'I don't know'?

Major difference between religion and science just.

When science doesn't know something, they readily admit the same. With religion, they must make something up.

Many would consider it a sign of strength and intellectual honesty to admit you don't know something, but will continue searching. Some, just can't deal with that.

You see, 100 years ago, science said "we don't know" a lot more often then today and decades from now, they will say "we don't know" even less.

The power of discovery through the scientific method, you gotta love it.

 

[Dizredux]

Even if the scientific explanation was a bunch of guesses, which it is not, it is still the scientific explanation. You have been presented with it and you stated that a scientific explanation did not exist. Therefore, you flat out lied.

You also said natural selection is random as is weather and volcanoes.

Dizredux

 

[DerelictJunction]

Nope, you keep evading the issue. The issue is with the view that humanity is the result of entirely, solely, completely naturalistic processes acting on a single life form from long long ago.

Not evading....setting up the parameters for success and failure. Since I have stated that I and, likely, the community of science in general, do not know the identity of the original common ancestor, you may decide that fact invalidates the conclusions reached by all of the scientific investigation performed in the area of common ancestry. If that is the case, I need go no further except to request your reasoning for that requirement. This request is especially pertinent since scientists in that field of study have reach the conclusion that all life descended from one common ancestor without requiring that the common ancestor be identified.

The claim is that humans are the result of only naturalistic processes. Prove it.

Again, I must request the parameters for success and failure. What information is necessary for you to accept that humans evolved from a common ancestor? Additionally, what information is necessary to show that "only naturalistic processes" were involved. I can show that changes in the environment can have certain effects on populations but I cannot determine if a supernatural being manipulated the environment in subtle ways that are nigh unto impossible to detect; butterfly wing flapping and tsunami's..etc.

I'm not sure how many times attempts have been made to divert the issue of creationism to something else, but it's happened frequently.

It was not a diversion. Rather, it was an example how scientific theories are not completely proven, yet are accepted as relatively true, regardless. Your refusal to admit that other scientific theories suffer from the same shortcomings as evolution, yet you accept them as provisionally true, reveals your bias against the evolution theory.

 

[justlookinla]

Major difference between religion and science just.

When science doesn't know something, they readily admit the same. With religion, they must make something up.

Many would consider it a sign of strength and intellectual honesty to admit you don't know something, but will continue searching. Some, just can't deal with that.

You see, 100 years ago, science said "we don't know" a lot more often then today and decades from now, they will say "we don't know" even less.

The power of discovery through the scientific method, you gotta love it.

The scientific method is a wonderful thing and has benefited mankind for quite a while now.

On the other hand, there are guesses and suppositions related to how the first life form became the complex and varied life we observe today. These guesses and suppositions, while maybe true, are nothing more than that, guesses and suppositions. Guesses and suppositions aren't evidence, aren't proof, but are subjective views taking the data at hand and making 'best guesses' from the data. Since the quest of many on this particular forum is to determine the truth concerning how, when or who was involved in the creation of humanity, then guesses and suppositions, while nice and interesting, offer nothing more than the viewpoint of whatever creationist position one has.

 

[justlookinla]

You also said natural selection is random as is weather and volcanoes.

Dizredux

I said that the weather, volcanoes, earthquakes are random, and if new life forms are being created by those forces acting upon natural selection, then the formation of those new life forms are random. One would then have to conclude that the creation of humanity is the product of random events.

 

[justlookinla]

Not evading....setting up the parameters for success and failure. Since I have stated that I and, likely, the community of science in general, do not know the identity of the original common ancestor, you may decide that fact invalidates the conclusions reached by all of the scientific investigation performed in the area of common ancestry. If that is the case, I need go no further except to request your reasoning for that requirement. This request is especially pertinent since scientists in that field of study have reach the conclusion that all life descended from one common ancestor without requiring that the common ancestor be identified.

Yes, I'm aware that there are those who believe all life we observe today was created from one single life form. That no one has identified that life form is simply reflecting the fact that Darwinist creationism is based on many guesses and suppositions. Many claim there is evidence, but the evidence is the maybe's, probably's and could have been's that are so common within the worldview of those who embrace that particular form of creationism.

Again, I must request the parameters for success and failure. What information is necessary for you to accept that humans evolved from a common ancestor? Additionally, what information is necessary to show that "only naturalistic processes" were involved. I can show that changes in the environment can have certain effects on populations but I cannot determine if a supernatural being manipulated the environment in subtle ways that are nigh unto impossible to detect; butterfly wing flapping and tsunami's..etc.

The information necessary to establish the creationist viewpoint of an atheistic creation, i.e., that all of life we observe today, including humanity, was created only, solely, totally, completely by naturalistic means is the same information necessary to establish the theistic viewpoint that a supernatural entity was involved in the creation of all life we observe today, including humanity. The fact is, the information isn't there for either view, only a series of guesses and suppositions from both sides. Each side have their arguments, what they consider to be the truth (truth is the quest) and offer them continually on this particular forum.

The question therefore really isn't about common descent except with those who embrace the theistic creationist view that all of life, including mankind, is only 6000 years old, the question is first about establishing life's, humanity's, creator and that's for both the atheistic and the theistic view of creation.

It was not a diversion. Rather, it was an example how scientific theories are not completely proven, yet are accepted as relatively true, regardless. Your refusal to admit that other scientific theories suffer from the same shortcomings as evolution, yet you accept them as provisionally true, reveals your bias against the evolution theory.

My focus is on determining what, be it natural or supernatural, created humanity. It could be an entirely naturalistic process, it could be aliens seeding earth (that would still be naturalistic I guess) it could be a supernatural entity setting certain creative laws in effect, it could be a supernatural entity guiding the creation process over the last x number of years, it could be a supernatural entity suddenly creating all life, including humanity. The fact is, every one of those views are faith-based at some level, including Darwinist creationism.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Yes, I'm aware that there are those who believe all life we observe today was created from one single life form. That no one has identified that life form is simply reflecting the fact that Darwinist creationism is based on many guesses and suppositions. Many claim there is evidence, but the evidence is the maybe's, probably's and could have been's that are so common within the worldview of those who embrace that particular form of creationism.

This actually doesn't answer my question as to whether you have determined that lack of knowledge of the identity of the single common ancestor is a deal breaker in your acceptance of the "proof" that all evolved from a single common ancestor by naturalistic means. A simple "Yes, it is necessary" or "No, it is not necessary" would have sufficed.
Additionally, there is the secondary question, also not answered, regarding your reasoning for determining the necessity for knowledge of the identity of that single common ancestor.

The information necessary to establish the creationist viewpoint of an atheistic creation, i.e., that all of life we observe today, including humanity, was created only, solely, totally, completely by naturalistic means is the same information necessary to establish the theistic viewpoint that a supernatural entity was involved in the creation of all life we observe today, including humanity. The fact is, the information isn't there for either view, only a series of guesses and suppositions from both sides. Each side have their arguments, what they consider to be the truth (truth is the quest) and offer them continually on this particular forum.

I suppose a reiteration of the requirement that science only speculate on evidence it can test would be useless here.

The question therefore really isn't about common descent except with those who embrace the theistic creationist view that all of life, including mankind, is only 6000 years old, the question is first about establishing life's, humanity's, creator and that's for both the atheistic and the theistic view of creation.

No it is not. Science, which I thought we were talking about here, does not speculate on the existence or non-existence of creators. Science only looks at the mechanisms involved in the process being studied. Show evidence that an outside force had a hand in the evolution of life on Earth and the theory will reflect that "an outside force" had a hand in evolution. The theory will not speculate on the identity of that "outside force".

My focus is on determining what, be it natural or supernatural, created humanity. It could be an entirely naturalistic process, it could be aliens seeding earth (that would still be naturalistic I guess) it could be a supernatural entity setting certain creative laws in effect, it could be a supernatural entity guiding the creation process over the last x number of years, it could be a supernatural entity suddenly creating all life, including humanity. The fact is, every one of those views are faith-based at some level, including Darwinist creationism.

Well then, we are done here. You agree that humans evolved from a common ancestor but believe, without evidence, that the evolution was performed by your version of a supernatural being; specifically, your idea of the God depicted in the Bible. At this point you and I appear to be in agreement on the process but not the impetus of that process.

 

[Loudmouth]

Nope, you keep evading the issue. The issue is with the view that humanity is the result of entirely, solely, completely naturalistic processes acting on a single life form from long long ago.

In other words, you don't care about the evidence. What you care about is that people follow the evidence to conclusions that you don't like. What you don't like is that science conflicts with your religious beliefs.

The claim is that humans are the result of only naturalistic processes. Prove it.

We only need to show that the evidence is consistent with naturalistic processes, which it is.

Do I need to show that God is not involved in the process of a chemical reactions before you will accept the scientific explanation that only uses naturalistic processes?

I'm not sure how many times attempts have been made to divert the issue of creationism to something else, but it's happened frequently.

The only issue is your complete rejection of the scientific method when it leads to conclusions you don't like.