Creation and Evolution Compatible...Questions

[ImmortalFlame]

Virtually all biologists believe in gradual change in species. Most believe this is the root of most speciation.

They are wrong.

Do you not realize that punctuated equilibrium is well-understood throughout the scientific community?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I think this is what scientists have observed with adaptation.....species can adapt over time to accommodate new habitats and food sources. These adaptive changes are passed on to new offspring, but never has adaptation resulted in a new creature. It only produces variety within a single taxonomic family. Science has no evidence to the contrary.

Please define "new creature". Please explain exactly what you would expect to see if an organism born from another organism would classify as a "new creature".

 

[gnostic]

Who said biology has to be separate from the one who created it?

And you have yet to provide a single evidence that God or Creator exist.

Science required evidences, not your blind faith and blind belief, nor do we need your irrational excuses, nor your frequent dishonest evasions to provide evidences.

You post pictures of this animal or that, but none of these have God creating these creatures, no pictures of God actually designing them.

 

[cladking]

Do you not realize that punctuated equilibrium is well-understood throughout the scientific community?

We've been going back and forth in this thread. I keep citing evidence and logic and it keeps getting ignored. So moving on is impossible.

Let me try a new tack.

Recently someone said that biology has moved on since Charles Darwin. If Darwin is now seen as having been wrong then how long do you think it will be until modern biology is seen to be wrong? Lots of people in Darwin's day considered the ToE to be state of the art. Indeed, you'll be hardpressed to find any period ever that humans weren't held as the very crown of creation and theory to be virtually complete.

Why should anyone believe believe in extrapolation of experiment and interpretation of observation when we know it will be overturned or overwritten in the future?

 

[cladking]

The Bible says that this is a special kind of "blindness"....but it only affects "unbelievers". (2 Corinthians 4:3-4)

I rail against belief a lot but it's not so much "belief" itself that I believe is dangerous; it's opinion masqueradiung as knowledge or omniscience.

There is none so blind as he refuses to see. Blind people can come to see the elephant being described but those who refuse to listen to the descriptions and observations of others and to think for themselves are condemned to forever live in darkness. ...or at least until science really does know something.

I think this is what scientists have observed with adaptation.....species can adapt over time to accommodate new habitats and food sources. These adaptive changes are passed on to new offspring, but never has adaptation resulted in a new creature. It only produces variety within a single taxonomic family. Science has no evidence to the contrary.

I agree. A rabbit is a rabbit and it's offspring will be rabbits until there is a fundamental shift.

Adaptation keeps up with external circumstances. If it didn't, as you said, the species would die out. This perhaps explains why some creatures went extinct in times past? Today species go extinct because of man's mismanagement of the earth. He knows better but is driven by greed. How horrible to think that the most intelligent species on earth, is life's greatest threat.

Man fiddles with things without ever pondering the direct effects far less considering unintended and indirect consequences. We are the greatest threat to all life but especially to ourselves. If we aren't extinct within the next century it might require an act of God.

Ironically ancient science which is the source of "God" might well be our salvation.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Recently someone said that biology has moved on since Charles Darwin. If Darwin is now seen as having been wrong then how long do you think it will be until modern biology is seen to be wrong? Lots of people in Darwin's day considered the ToE to be state of the art. Indeed, you'll be hardpressed to find any period ever that humans weren't held as the very crown of creation and theory to be virtually complete.

". . . when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."--Isaac Asimov, "The Relativity of Wrong"

Darwin got some things wrong, such as the mechanism of inheritance. He also got some things very right, such as the importance of natural selection in the process of evolution. There have been many changes to the theory of evolution over the years, but each change is smaller than the last. It is equivalent to going from a flat Earth to a spherical Earth to an oblate spheroid Earth.

Why should anyone believe believe in extrapolation of experiment and interpretation of observation when we know it will be overturned or overwritten in the future?

First, for the theory of evolution it is interpolation of evidence since we have the endpoints of evolution living with us today. Second, if you want absolute proof then science probably isn't for you. What you are speaking against is the very idea of doing science.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I rail against belief a lot but it's not so much "belief" itself that I believe is dangerous; it's opinion masqueradiung as knowledge or omniscience.

That is a perfect description of most creationists I find on forums like these. Without even an inkling of knowledge in the biological sciences they proclaim that 150 years of scientific discovery is wrong. They also claim that nowhere in the fossil record are there transitional fossils, as if they have dug up every single square inch of fossil bearing strata to support such a claim.

I agree. A rabbit is a rabbit and it's offspring will be rabbits until there is a fundamental shift.

No, they will always be rabbits just as the common ancestor of humans and fish was a vertebrate and human and fish are still vertebrates. You don't evolve out of your ancestry.

 

[cladking]

That is a perfect description of most creationists I find on forums like these. Without even an inkling of knowledge in the biological sciences they proclaim that 150 years of scientific discovery is wrong. They also claim that nowhere in the fossil record are there transitional fossils, as if they have dug up every single square inch of fossil bearing strata to support such a claim.

You do realize that the fossil RECORD includes ONLY those individuals KNOWN to have existed and NONE of those you believe must have existed.

This is by DEFINITION.

I wouldn't suggest 150 years of scientific discovery is wrong or any of the actual science is wrong. I am stating flat out that it appears much of the interpretation is wrong.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

You do realize that the fossil RECORD includes ONLY those individuals KNOWN to have existed and NONE of those you believe must have existed.

How would you know if you haven't dug up every fossil that is in the ground? Are you omniscient?

Also, the theory of evolution predicted that there were species in the past with a mixture of human and ape features. That is exactly what we find in multiple hominid transitional species like Australopithecus afarensis and Homo erectus.

 

[cladking]

How would you know if you haven't dug up every fossil that is in the ground? Are you omniscient?

This is by DEFINITION.

 

[Deeje]

I will give you a chance Deeje. Start a new thread. Call it "Deeje teaches ID". No mention of evolution or Gods. No derogatory comments. Just teach us ID.

Tell me what that would accomplish that hasn't already been demonstrated in my existing threads?

What forum would I put it in so that there is no mention of evolution or gods or derogatory comments?

I can put it in the JW DIR...? Would that help? But you do realize that you cannot mention Intelligent Design without mentioning the Intelligent Designer....?

Happy to comply but it won't be "Deeje" teaching ID...it will be logic....the correct use of science....and the Bible demonstrating how logical ID really is, compared to the blind, unplanned forces of evolution. Ready when you are....

 

[ImmortalFlame]

We've been going back and forth in this thread. I keep citing evidence and logic and it keeps getting ignored. So moving on is impossible.

Let me try a new tack.

Recently someone said that biology has moved on since Charles Darwin. If Darwin is now seen as having been wrong then how long do you think it will be until modern biology is seen to be wrong?

False equivalence. Darwin wasn't "wrong", his theory and observations were merely incomplete, and it's pointless to postulate on how long it'll take the current ruling ideas to be overturned, because the time to do that is when there is a good reason to overturn it.

Lots of people in Darwin's day considered the ToE to be state of the art. Indeed, you'll be hardpressed to find any period ever that humans weren't held as the very crown of creation and theory to be virtually complete.

What relevance does that have?

Why should anyone believe believe in extrapolation of experiment and interpretation of observation when we know it will be overturned or overwritten in the future?

Because 1) you don't know that and can't know that it will be overwritten, 2) it makes successful predictions that can be independently verified, 3) it aligns with absolutely every piece of evidence we have available.

What you're asking here is akin to asking "why stand by any guilty verdict? Guilty verdicts have been overturned in the past, so why accept a verdict of guilty if it's just going to be overturned in the future?" Your logic makes no sense. As long as there is sufficient reason to assume guilt, we should assume guilt - and the time to change your mind about that is when there is sufficient reason or evidence to the contrary. You don't reach a rational conclusion by ignoring the evidence and assuming any conclusion will eventually be deemed false.

 

[ArtieE]

Tell me what that would accomplish that hasn't already been demonstrated in my existing threads?

What forum would I put it in so that there is no mention of evolution or gods or derogatory comments?

I can put it in the JW DIR...? Would that help? But you do realize that you cannot mention Intelligent Design without mentioning the Intelligent Designer....?

Happy to comply but it won't be "Deeje" teaching ID...it will be logic....the correct use of science....and the Bible demonstrating how logical ID really is, compared to the blind, unplanned forces of evolution. Ready when you are....

"the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text".
Intelligent Design - Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Maybe the thread goes in general? Remember when you start teaching that you are supposed to be neutral as to the identity of the designer(s). Otherwise you wouldn't be teaching ID but just preaching.

 

[ArtieE]

I agree. A rabbit is a rabbit and it's offspring will be rabbits until there is a fundamental shift.

Suppose you start with a rabbit couple. Suppose the DNA of the offspring differs with half a percent from their parents for various reasons. Suppose the DNA of their offspring differs with half a percent from their parents for various reasons. After a thousand generations would the offspring still be rabbits even though their DNA is completely different from the original couple? At what point is your fundamental shift?

 

[Deeje]

"the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text".
Intelligent Design - Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

I think you misunderstand what Intelligent Design means to a JW. We do not subscribe to any of the "theories" put forward by those who are agnostics, creationists or anyone else. There is no "scientific" theory for us...there is just what the Bible says, backed up by what is observed in nature and what is proven (rather then merely suggested) by science. The Discovery Institute is not where we gain our knowledge.

You are barking up the wrong tree.

Maybe the thread goes in general? Remember when you start teaching that you are supposed to be neutral as to the identity of the designer(s). Otherwise you wouldn't be teaching ID but just preaching.

There is no way for a JW to be "neutral" about belief in an Intelligent Creator. If you think I am going to start a thread just to repeat what I have already said a thousand times in other threads, then I cannot see the point.

We have no "theories"...we have solidly based Bible beliefs.....I understand if you can't get your head around that.

 

[ArtieE]

I think you misunderstand what Intelligent Design means to a JW. We do not subscribe to any of the "theories" put forward by those who are agnostics, creationists or anyone else. There is no "scientific" theory for us...

There is no way for a JW to be "neutral" about belief in an Intelligent Creator. If you think I am going to start a thread just to repeat what I have already said a thousand times in other threads, then I cannot see the point.

We have no "theories"...we have solidly based Bible beliefs.....I understand if you can't get your head around that.

ID is a scientific theory... just read The Discovery Institute definition. Nothing to do with Bible or God beliefs. If you can't be neutral stop talking about ID.

 

[Deeje]

ID is a scientific theory

No, sorry, for us it's got nothing to do with theory. It's about strongly held beliefs based on faith.

We have a different definition.....a bit like science's definition of a theory.

You have strongly held beliefs based on faith too....you just can't admit it.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No, sorry, for us it's got nothing to do with theory. It's about strongly held beliefs based on faith.

We have a different definition.....a bit like science's definition of a theory.

You have strongly held beliefs based on faith too....you just can't admit it.

So you admit that your beliefs are religiously founded and have no business being offered as alternatives to scientific theories, then?

 

[cladking]

Suppose you start with a rabbit couple. Suppose the DNA of the offspring differs with half a percent from their parents for various reasons. Suppose the DNA of their offspring differs with half a percent from their parents for various reasons. After a thousand generations would the offspring still be rabbits even though their DNA is completely different from the original couple? At what point is your fundamental shift?

All observable fundamental shifts have been sudden exactly like every other change in life. There is no experiment that shows otherwise and no data that changes this fact.

Wolves didn't evolve into dogs and dinosaurs didn't evolve into birds. Darwin was wrong and current theory is most probably wrong as well because it doesn't agree with observation or the fossil record.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

All observable fundamental shifts have been sudden exactly like every other change in life. There is no experiment that shows otherwise and no data that changes this fact.

They asked you a question, not for a re-statement of your claims. At what point is a change in allele frequency a "fundamental shift" as opposed to merely a gradual shift? Are you unaware that changes in allele frequencies over time can happen gradually?

Wolves didn't evolve into dogs and dinosaurs didn't evolve into birds. Darwin was wrong and current theory is most probably wrong as well because it doesn't agree with observation or the fossil record.

Again, re-stating your position is not an explanation or justification of your position. What facts can you bring to table to demonstrate these claims?