Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby

FAQ

Contact

Profile

What would it take for you to switch sides?

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4

Bible-Discussion.com Forum Index -> Creation vs. Evolution Debate

Author

Message

admin
Beloved Admin

Joined: 28 Sep 2000
Posts: 1815

Location: Macau, China

Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 7:21 pm Post subject:

Yes FFT, well put. I would agree with that. My current theology is independent of evolution. _________________ Cybermonsters (Most Beloved Admin) Favorite Octopus Video! - My Site - Studio Have a question or need help with your account? E-mail: forum @ askland.net

Ryck
Lion King

Joined: 05 Dec 2002
Posts: 1094

Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 8:06 pm Post subject:

FFT wrote:

Ryck wrote:

No, it's observing wishful thinking in action for an unsubstantiated theory that continues unsubstantiated.

Proving once again that you don't actually understand evolution. You're not really helping your case if you actually believe that the theory of evolution is unsubstantiated.

Well, you are not helping your case if evolution doesn't need to be substantiated. Just accept it and stop asking questions about the lack of facts Rolling Eyes

FFT wrote:

Ryck wrote:

He hopes that evolutionists in the future, not unlike yourself, would prove him right. How glad for him he didn't hold his breath. Smile

He had enough evidence available to him at that point to come up with the theory and there has been plenty more since.

Plenty - showing how species are remarkably steady and unchanging.

FFT wrote:

Ryck wrote:

Really? Evolutionists have been digging into the fossil record for 149 years because they feel this is VERY important.

Important to evolution? Sure! Is the theory of evolution reliant on fossils? No.

No records, no facts, accept the theory on "faith"?

FFT wrote:

Ryck wrote:

Did they work the fossil record in vain in your eyes? I guess some evolutionists as yourself would rather dimiss the lack of fossil evidence as a technical annoyance that should be overlooked - presumably for another 149 years. Very Happy

There isn't actually a lack of fossil evidence. Who told you there was? Is there "not enough" according to people that don't understand the theory of evolution? Absolutely. Does this really mean anything? Nope!

Pleanty of fossil evidence but it doesn't help the evolutionists. The fossil reveal sudden appearance of fully developed species which don't show transitioning into other species.

I can understand your reluctance on the fossil record.

FFT wrote:

Ryck wrote:

That was one of my points. If evolution is an ongoing process we should see all species in transition. Yet the living record is lacking in evidence as the fossil record.

Again, you don't know what you're talking about. Want to see species in transition? Wolves to domestic dogs to dingoes. It's quite fascinating, wolves and dogs can reproduce, dogs and dingoes can reproduce, but wolves and dingoes can not.

They have some curious similarities and curious dissimilarities. Among the obvious visual similarities their dissimilarities are that they reporoduce once a year, have a gestation period is 8 weeks as opposed to 9 weeks for dogs, and are considered a more primative and wild than the domesticated dog. They have some important skeletal differences. List goes on. You are trying to compare lions to tigers and then claim ... well, what exactly? LOL!

By the way, you can breed lions and tigers. Look up "ligers".

You can breed dingos and dogs.

"Although they have many distinct physical and behavioural characteristics that differentiate them from domestic dogs, such as an annual breeding cycle, the two species interbreed and produce fertile offspring as do many wolf-like species." -- http://www.wolfweb.com.au/acd/genvarindingo.htm

Stands to reason that dingos and wolves can reproduce since dingos can reproduce with dogs and wolves can reproduce with dogs. Maybe behaviorly, you can't get dingos and wolves together to "do it". Perhaps more effort is required - more effort than, say, between lions and tigers. Maybe they can be mated in the test tube environment of the lab using artificial methods with egg and sperm cells?

I'll see if I can read up some more regarding dingos and wolves but I think they can. Wink

FFT wrote:

Ryck wrote:

Living things on earth today are not seen to be evolving into something else.

Plenty of instances of speciation.

Zero transitional forms.

FFT wrote:

Ryck wrote:

Instead, they are all complete in form and distinct from other types.

What makes you think that we'd have to see half-forms if the theory of evolution were true?

When did evolution stop? Assuming it didn't, why don't we see species still in the evolutionary act of transitioning?

Oh, and need I remind you the missing evidence of transitional forms in all of the fossil record? Smile

FFT wrote:

Ryck wrote:

FFT wrote:

Life tends towards stability. When the environment changes, life changes with it until it is adapted, then changes happen more slowly.

For that you need the fossil record - which you casually dismissed as immaterial.

Ah, so now you do believe the fossil record supports evolution?

I don't. Just like you don't. Laughing

But for different reasons.

The fossil records don't support evolution but supports the constancy of the species. You consider the fossil record immaterial because it doesn't support the unique evidence evolution requires.

FFT wrote:

Ryck wrote:

But the geologic record did not then and still does not yield today that finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution which Darwin hoped for, you claim, and you ironically dismiss.

Hoping for something isn't the same as having faith that it exists.

Darwin hoped for it and had faith that it existed. He hoped that future investigators would find in the geologic record the fossils to prove his points. As it turned out, the record worked against his theories.

FFT wrote:

Ryck wrote:

FFT wrote:

Which is the case. Why aren't you aware of the numerous speciation events that have been observed?

I'm aware of some claims to that effect.

So what's your problem with them?

Evolutionary claims that are unsubstantiated.

Not MY problem but their's. Smile

FFT
Emperor of the Universe

Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6337

Location: Memphis

Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 8:54 pm Post subject:

Ryck wrote:

Well, you are not helping your case if evolution doesn't need to be substantiated. Just accept it and stop asking questions about the lack of facts Rolling Eyes

I'm having trouble parsing this one. What, exactly, are you trying to say?

Ryck wrote:

FFT wrote:

He had enough evidence available to him at that point to come up with the theory and there has been plenty more since.

Plenty - showing how species are remarkably steady and unchanging.

I'm honestly curious as to where you're getting your information from, because it's remarkably false.

Speciation events not only occur, but they've been observed happening over and over.

Ryck wrote:

FFT wrote:

Important to evolution? Sure! Is the theory of evolution reliant on fossils? No.

No records, no facts, accept the theory on "faith"?

Hardly.

Ryck wrote:

Given that we can't possibly expect every step of the way to leave a fossilized record of itself, there is still plenty of evidence in the fossil record to show that species have changed over time. I mean unless you think that rabbits just managed not to ever fossilize until the Paleocene despite plenty of similarly-sized species fossilizing just fine.

And it's not that I'm "reluctant" about the fossil record, I just realize that creationists can handwave it way quite easily by claiming to have some nonsensical requirement that we'd never actually expect to find.

Ryck wrote:

By the way, you can breed lions and tigers. Look up "ligers".

I'm aware. The interesting thing is that only female ligers and tigons are fertile. Why would that be, if they can reproduce?

Ryck wrote:

I'll see if I can read up some more regarding dingos and wolves but I think they can. Wink

Hm. Now that I've done some looking it appears I was probably incorrect.

Ryck wrote:

FFT wrote:

Ryck wrote:

Living things on earth today are not seen to be evolving into something else.

Plenty of instances of speciation.

Zero transitional forms.

Well I mean we've got this new species of E. coli that can metabolize citrate and the scientists kept a sample every 500-generation cycle and it had been running for 40,000. Is that transitional enough for you?

Ryck wrote:

When did evolution stop? Assuming it didn't, why don't we see species still in the evolutionary act of transitioning?

They are. What exactly do you think we should see? Cats with half-wings?

Ryck wrote:

The fossil records don't support evolution but supports the constancy of the species. You consider the fossil record immaterial because it doesn't support the unique evidence evolution requires.

How can you seriously sit there and say it supports the constancy of the species? It shows change over time.

Ryck wrote:

Darwin hoped for it and had faith that it existed. He hoped that future investigators would find in the geologic record the fossils to prove his points.

Do be a dear and quote something Darwin said that makes you believe he had faith that these would be found?

Ryck wrote:

Evolutionary claims that are unsubstantiated.

They're exceedingly well-substantiated. Saying otherwise only shows that you are ignorant or dishonest.

Unless you believe they are unsubstantiated merely because they are "evolutionary" in which case you could be crazy instead.
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.

Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to.

Dust
Big Lion

Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 959

Location: All over the western U.S.

Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 11:49 pm Post subject:

admin wrote:

My current theology is independent of evolution.

Ahh, so then it must be possible to accept the theoretic assertions deduced from evolutionary observation, while still maintaining a belief that God is the creator.

Can these two positions actually be parallel to one another, rather than being diametric opposites, such as is the case with atheism, and theism?
_________________
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.

rufus
Ferret

Joined: 22 Sep 2007
Posts: 122

Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2008 7:08 am Post subject:

admin wrote:

What would it take for you to switch sides on the Creation vs. Evolution debates?

By "switching sides" I presume you mean a creationist switching over to become an evolutionist. But many people have switched the other way. I once beieved in evolution (i.e. humans came from monkeys), but started to change my view many years ago.

admin wrote:

For me, being an "evolutionist" (which changed after much reading)...

It likewise required much reading for me (a "creationist") to change my belief away from evolution. It also required using logic. I also became an amateur geologist and learned a lot about rocks and fossils which I had collected. I've been somewhat surprised at some of the staunch evolutionist I've debated with who have not even looked at the fossil shells in their own back yard, let alone inquired into how they might have arrived there!

admin wrote:

I trust mainstream science...

What do you mean by "mainstream science"? If you mean true science such as engineering or medicine, I likewise "trust" in the ability to observe processes that are shown to be factual or at least probable. If on the other hand you mean ""opinions or beliefs"" held by some in academic circles, then I'll say I trust their "opinions or beliefs" as much as I trust the "opinions or beliefs" of anyone else.

admin wrote:

...and do not consider it to be some evil inside organization.

I don't consider "organizations" which are comprised of those holding Academic Credentials to be "evil". I consider them "human" and therefore having agendas subject to ambition, job security, money, personal beliefs and other such factors.

admin wrote:

So I trust the scientific process and peer review to work itself out.

"Scientific process" and "peer review" are quite different. The true "scientific process" is something that can be proved in a laboratory. Something that can be observed and calculated. "Peer review" on the other hand is more like when an editor of a science journal decides what shall or shall not be published. There's a big difference between an actual scientific experiment and what the editors of Scientific American magazine decide what shall or shall not be printed in their next edition.

I will close by saying that I don't consider either creation or evolution to be science. Only processes that can be observed and calculated can be properly called "science".

P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe

Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8324

Location: Victoria, Canada

Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2008 8:41 am Post subject:

rufus wrote:

It likewise required much reading for me (a "creationist") to change my belief away from evolution. It also required using logic.

It always worries me when people say they use logic but then come to a completely false conclusion. Can you explain the logical steps which you went through in your reasoning?

rufus wrote:

Engineering and medicine aren't 'true science'. In fact, one could argue that they aren't science at all. They are *applications* of science. Engineering is an application of physics and some other sciences, and medicine is an application of biology and some other sciences.

'Mainstream science' is the body of scientific knowledge in all areas of science which humanity has collected and which is widely-accepted by the relevant experts.

rufus wrote:

Spoken like someone who distrusts science. If you think that science is just another human endeavor, subject to all of the flaws in reasoning in any other area of human activity, then you truly don't understand what science is.

rufus wrote:

That's not how peer review works. I am a scientist, and I have published several papers in peer-reviewed journals, and never once was it the case that a single editor was in charge of deciding if my paper would be accepted or rejected. Papers are usually distributed to at least two anonymous reviewers, but usually more (and the more, the better). In many conferences, they use a point system, where the different reviewers give the paper points. In the end, the papers with the most points are published. It's about as objective as you could possibly hope for.

rufus wrote:

I will close by saying that I don't consider either creation or evolution to be science. Only processes that can be observed and calculated can be properly called "science".

You're half right. Certainly creation isn't a science. But evolution is scientific by any reasonable definition of the word.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous.

Ryck
Lion King

Joined: 05 Dec 2002
Posts: 1094

Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:42 pm Post subject:

P1234567890 wrote:

rufus wrote:

It likewise required much reading for me (a "creationist") to change my belief away from evolution. It also required using logic.

It always worries me when people say they use logic but then come to a completely false conclusion. Can you explain the logical steps which you went through in your reasoning?

While you wait for Rufus, may I add mine?

I was a creationist from childhood under the basic acceptance of belief passed on to me from my parents and from church that God created the Earth and all life on it including Man. Then I went to school, watched TV documentaries, and other media where everybody says Evolution is the way life came to be on Earth. So I became an evolutionist again by basic acceptance of belief.

Then in an evolution debate someone mention a thought provoking argument. I forgot the name of the argument but it went something like this:

1. Everything that exists has a cause.
2. The universe exists.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

And I knew enough of astronomy to know that the Big Bang was the accepted cause for the universe. So who caused that Big Bang? It seems compelling to me to say that God caused the Big Bang. Then things fell into place after that.

Quote:

rufus wrote:

I will close by saying that I don't consider either creation or evolution to be science. Only processes that can be observed and calculated can be properly called "science".

You're half right. Certainly creation isn't a science. But evolution is scientific by any reasonable definition of the word.

I beg to differ. I find a lot of evolutionists believing the tenents of evolution on faith while the evidence is still not there. Evolution seems to be assumed first as fact before the facts are actually in!

After Darwin came on the scene it appears that evolution has became the vogue "scientific religion" where it is the practice for almost all scientists to accept it. Many have. And many bend the observations they see to some evolutionary explanation to fit in be it in journals, to TV documentaries, to everything else in between.

Evolution is still a THEORY, isn't it?

P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe

Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8324

Location: Victoria, Canada

Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:55 pm Post subject:

Ryck wrote:

Then in an evolution debate someone mention a thought provoking argument. I forgot the name of the argument but it went something like this:

1. Everything that exists has a cause.
2. The universe exists.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

First of all, what does this have to do with evolution? Secondly, you have no idea if the first premise is true. There is no law in physics which says that cause precedes effect.

Simplistic arguments like this aren't nearly sophisticated enough to help probe into advanced physics such as Big Bang cosmology.

Ryck wrote:

The evidence for evolution is astoundingly broad, astoundingly deep, and astoundingly compelling. Evolution is accepted by virtually all mainstream scientists. You're basically saying here that the world's scientists can't tell the difference between what is and what is not science. It's a ridiculous argument.

Ryck wrote:

Evolution is still a THEORY, isn't it?

This sentence tells me that you never had a proper science education. You don't seem to understand what it means to be a 'scientific theory'.

When Sherlock Holmes says to Watson, "Watson, I have a theory.", that is NOT what it means to be a scientific theory. In common, everyday usage, 'theory' really means 'hypothesis'. This is how you are using it, and it is completely wrong.

In science, 'theory' basically means, 'well-established scientific fact, plus all of its implications'. The theory of gravity, the germ theory of disease, and yes, the theory of evolution are all well-established scientific facts.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous.

Ryck
Lion King

Joined: 05 Dec 2002
Posts: 1094

Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 7:54 am Post subject:

P1234567890 wrote:

Ryck wrote:

If you don't have matter for life, then evolution is moot. We are here so "matter" matters. (pun intended)

I make no apology that this simple argument isn't sohisticated enough for you.

The question we want the answer to is does matter have some intrinsic quality that it seeks to organize itself into higher, improving, and more complex forms of living species?

Quote:

Ryck wrote:

I don't find macro evolution's arguments very compelling. A lot of honest scientists either came to the same conclusion or are asking the same probing questions rather than ASSUMING evolution is a fact first (a/k/a "faith").

Quote:

Ryck wrote:

Evolution is still a THEORY, isn't it?

And this statement tells me you prefer to put people down as you inflate yourself up as part of your argument strategy.

I find the inflatable-balloon-figure argument as weak as the strawman argument. Yet valuable in telling me something about the person making them.

P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe

Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8324

Location: Victoria, Canada

Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 8:34 am Post subject:

Ryck wrote:

This is a completely false statement. Among relevant expert scientists, the overwhelming majority agree that we evolved from lower primates. For you to say that the arguments aren't compelling is fine and good, but that really doesn't matter. You're not an expert scientist. You're not a logician. You are neither an expert in the relevant area of biology, nor are you an expert in arguments. The experts all agree. How can you possibly feel that you are right and that they are all wrong?!? Can't you see how arrogant this is?

Ryck wrote:

And this statement tells me you prefer to put people down as you inflate yourself up as part of your argument strategy.

What the ?!? I'm not putting you down AT ALL! I was trying to explain to you that you are using the term, 'theory'. Incorrectly. You really are using it incorrectly! How is this an example of putting you down and inflating myself up???

My 'argument strategy' is not to put you down and inflate myself up, but rather to point out where you're making logical mistakes.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous.

Pete
Lion King

Joined: 31 May 2006
Posts: 1019

Location: Arlington Hts., Il. USA

Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 1:26 pm Post subject:

Hey P1, In the area of an unproven, speculative concept such as evolution, what make one a “relevant expert scientist” on the subject when there is no physical evidence to prove their assertions. “Overwhelming majority” also counts for nothing, since there is no actual physical evidence to back their position. Unless one challenges the “overwhelming majority” in any area, progress will grind to a halt. That includes science. There is no evidence whatever to verify Darwinian evolution. The bottom line to the whole discussion is; can a highly interdependent universe come into existence out of absolutely nothing – without a cause? The fact is, nothing happens without a cause, especially a full blown universe with unswerving, reliable and predictable laws of physics that regulate everything. What law of physics states that lower forms automatically evolve into higher forms randomly? How is it that perfection derives from happenstance, that interdependent sophistication is the consequence of pure chance, constantly on an upward scale? Where in the world did you get this notion that there is no law of cause and effect? How about an example or two. I get it now! To admit such a law, would bring us back to the beginning. The universe happened without an original cause. Where was my mind anyway.

P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe

Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8324

Location: Victoria, Canada

Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 1:46 pm Post subject:

Pete wrote:

Hey P1, In the area of an unproven, speculative concept such as evolution, what make one a “relevant expert scientist” on the subject when there is no physical evidence to prove their assertions.

This is a pretty loaded question. Virtually all of the expert scientists on the planet disagree with you that there is no physical evidence. In fact, they think that there is TONS of physical evidence. You are basically trying to argue that you know better than the scientists do what constitutes scientific evidence. This should give you pause.

Pete wrote:

Unless one challenges the “overwhelming majority” in any area, progress will grind to a halt. That includes science.

Not really. Most of science (and mathematics) works by chipping away at what are called 'open problems' rather than by overthrowing (or augmenting) a well-established theory.

Pete wrote:

The bottom line to the whole discussion is; can a highly interdependent universe come into existence out of absolutely nothing – without a cause?

Another loaded question! When talking about the Big Bang singularity, it doesn't make sense to talk about cause and effect, because those concepts require time, and time as you understand it is not how singularities work. In any case, this has *nothing* to do with evolution.

Pete wrote:

Where in the world did you get this notion that there is no law of cause and effect? How about an example or two.

There is no law of cause and effect. Here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality

Relevant passage:

Quote:

According to Sowa (2000),[2] up until the twentieth century, three assumptions described by Max Born in 1949 were dominant in the definition of causality:

1. "Causality postulates that there are laws by which the occurrence of an entity B of a certain class depends on the occurrence of an entity A of another class, where the word entity means any physical object, phenomenon, situation, or event. A is called the cause, B the effect.
2. "Antecedence postulates that the cause must be prior to, or at least simultaneous with, the effect.
3. "Contiguity postulates that cause and effect must be in spatial contact or connected by a chain of intermediate things in contact." (Born, 1949, as cited in Sowa, 2000)

However, according to Sowa (2000), "relativity and quantum mechanics have forced physicists to abandon these assumptions as exact statements of what happens at the most fundamental levels

Like I said, there is no law of cause and effect. It is based on assumptions which have been abandoned due to the breakthroughs in science which happened during the last century.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous.

ShardikSon
Bear Cub

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 610

Location: Aux Arcs

Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 6:02 pm Post subject:

Dust wrote:

admin wrote:

My current theology is independent of evolution.

Ahh, so then it must be possible to accept the theoretic assertions deduced from evolutionary observation, while still maintaining a belief that God is the creator.

...

I would say yes, it is possible.
_________________
-----------
"Logic is a defined process for going wrong with confidence and certainty" - CF Kettering
“In prayer it is better to have a heart without words than words without a heart. “- Mohandas Gandhi
--------------------
I delight greatly in the LORD;
my soul rejoices in my God...
- Isaiah 61:10 (NIV)

ShardikSon
Bear Cub

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 610

Location: Aux Arcs

Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 6:03 pm Post subject:

Dust wrote:

admin,

Are you a theistic evolutionist or a atheistic evolutionist?

How about an evolved theist?
_________________
-----------
"Logic is a defined process for going wrong with confidence and certainty" - CF Kettering
“In prayer it is better to have a heart without words than words without a heart. “- Mohandas Gandhi
--------------------
I delight greatly in the LORD;
my soul rejoices in my God...
- Isaiah 61:10 (NIV)

Display posts from previous:

	Bible-Discussion.com Forum Index -> Creation vs. Evolution Debate	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4
Page 4 of 4