Creation and Evolution Compatible...Questions

[Guy Threepwood]

Yes, very naughty of all those past creatures not to have their remains readily available for us, isn't it? But being dead we can't blame them.

The dog may well have eaten your homework, but I cannot give you an A+ for that. Some of us are sticklers for empirical evidence!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Would that be the same Galileo that you theists

"found "vehemently suspect of heresy", namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the centre of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture."? Galileo Galilei - Wikipedia

Galileo was a theist..

If you want to talk about the problems inherent to institutionalizing academic consensus.... then we have much to agree on, but what fun is that!?

 

[Audie]

Yes I agree entirely there, I assume you apply this to ToE also? not everyone does!



it was pretty popular among several astronomers, and as you say, we cannot definitively prove that there were NOT canals on Mars- but I think we can agree here? it was a failed theory




when I said 'proved' I was too emphatic, now I'm too vague.. I'm trying my best to find that perfect level of clarity here!

I think Darwinism is 'most probably' complete cobblers... hows that?

I am deliberately skipping astronomy as being discursive.

Anyone who has a clue about science knows that a theory cannot be proven. Why were you talking about proof? I figured you didnt know any better. You were not being too emphaic, you were simply wrong. And, for that matter, one can combine vague, too emphatic, and plain wrong, as you have, ah
"proved". Demonstrated, for sure.

I dont doubt that you think ToE (not "Darwinism") is false. Good that you put it as opinion
rather than fact.


If it is false, it ought not be so hard to disprove it.
Dont you think??

You've shown no flaws or contrary evidence.

You didnt say what you do believe, is it literal genesis, or what?

 

[ArtieE]

But if you understand why I could never author new forum software this way (far less the very same software I am using to do this) then you understand- in principle at least- the problem with extrapolating variation into macro evolution.

Forums "are a technological evolution of the dialup bulletin board system."
Internet forum - Wikipedia
I guess a god didn't simply make this forum exactly as it is after all.

 

[Audie]

Forums "are a technological evolution of the dialup bulletin board system."
Internet forum - Wikipedia
I guess a god didn't simply make this forum exactly as it is after all.

Ah but, is there new information?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I dont doubt that you think ToE (not "Darwinism") is false. Good that you put it as opinion
rather than fact.

Agree, if we all acknowledge our beliefs. faith as such, we can all get along- insisting on 'undeniable fact' is where the problems usually begin- leads to disdain and adhominem


“Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact..." Richard Dawkins

and hence

"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)"

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I am deliberately skipping astronomy as being discursive.

Anyone who has a clue about science knows that a theory cannot be proven. Why were you talking about proof? I figured you didnt know any better. You were not being too emphaic, you were simply wrong. And, for that matter, one can combine vague, too emphatic, and plain wrong, as you have, ah
"proved". Demonstrated, for sure.

I dont doubt that you think ToE (not "Darwinism") is false. Good that you put it as opinion
rather than fact.


If it is false, it ought not be so hard to disprove it.
Dont you think??

You've shown no flaws or contrary evidence.

You didnt say what you do believe, is it literal genesis, or what?

Genesis correctly states that the universe began with a specific creation event, something many atheists mocked as religious pseudoscience and 'big bang' not so long ago

It also talks about Earth being one great ocean, later one ocean and one land mass, life beginning in the ocean and culminating with mankind.

All lucky guesses perhaps... I don't use Genesis as an authority I just give it credit where due for being uncannily accurate


The case against Darwinism has a far more objective source- mathematics. The machine code of DNA is uncannily computer like..

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Forums "are a technological evolution of the dialup bulletin board system."
Internet forum - Wikipedia
I guess a god didn't simply make this forum exactly as it is after all.

so ID, not random mutation- ID is the only proven ( * Audie may not agree!) source of such information systems

 

[Mock Turtle]

The dog may well have eaten your homework, but I cannot give you an A+ for that. Some of us are sticklers for empirical evidence!

As I said, blame the poor creatures who died for not arranging matters that we found everything we need. Life isn't like that!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

As I said, blame the poor creatures who died for not arranging matters that we found everything we need. Life isn't like that!

No but science is, we need a little more than unsupported speculation before we declare:

“Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact." Dawkins

But the thing is that we HAVE found lots of fossils, just not the ones Darwin and followers had hoped for. The gaps, jumps, stasis, explosions have become every more pronounced as the picture has filled in- not smoother, steadier as Darwin predicted

 

[Mock Turtle]

No but science is, we need a little more than unsupported speculation before we declare:

“Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact." Dawkins

But the thing is that we HAVE found lots of fossils, just not the ones Darwin and followers had hoped for. The gaps, jumps, stasis, explosions have become every more pronounced as the picture has filled in- not smoother, steadier as Darwin predicted

From what I have read, the view that there were indeed 'jumps' rather than a smooth transition between states seems to be gathering support. But that hardly places the whole theory into question. There is no other sensible theory - certainly not coming from any religious direction.

 

[ArtieE]

Genesis correctly states that the universe began with a specific creation event

No it doesn't. The word universe doesn't appear in Genesis.

It also talks about Earth being one great ocean, later one ocean and one land mass, life beginning in the ocean and culminating with mankind.

Right... evolution you mean?

 

[Audie]

Agree, if we all acknowledge our beliefs. faith as such, we can all get along- insisting on 'undeniable fact' is where the problems usually begin- leads to disdain and adhominem


“Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact..." Richard Dawkins

and hence

"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)"

We could see where your ideas of what is a belief and what is faith, and mine differ but-never mind that.

"Dawkins" is not "science" and he is of no interest to me. I dont really know why creationists are so fond of
talking about him.

I've been around scientists, actually quite a lot, and
I dont think you'd find a one who would talk "fact"
beyond something like, "it is a fact that this is my data".

Possibly, the big D is distinguishing between evolution as a process of whatever scope, and ToE, a theory.

Saying a theory is a fact is bonkers.

Even the most entrenched creationist will generally say that there is "microevolution".

That ToE has been demonstrated to be sound beyond any reasonable doubt, i would say is so, in that all
known relevant data is consistent with the theory, anbd
no disproof has been discovered.

Too if it were to be disproved, top to bottom, and the genesis account shown correct, it would blow a massive crater in all of the hard sciences, as so much
is interconnected. Dating and atomic theory. Etc.

Wont say it cannot happen, but it seems awful unlikely.

As to ignorant, etc, well-

I myself have not encountered anyone who was at all well informed on evolution / science in general who
thinks it is false, tho there are intellectually dishonest persons like
the paleontologist Dr K Wise who famously said that if all the evidence
in the universe turned against creationism, he would still be a yec.

In the event, skipping the invidious adjectives (those are not ad homs btw)
from Dawkins or whoever...

Most people who dont accedpt ToE are in fact very ignorant of it. Whether they are morally weak, or simply insane, I will leave to the big D.

There is to my knowledge no reasonable basis for not accepting it as valid.

Reasonable, as based on actual data.

 

[Audie]

From what I have read, the view that there were indeed 'jumps' rather than a smooth transition between states seems to be gathering support. But that hardly places the whole theory into question. There is no other sensible theory - certainly not coming from any religious direction.

What have you read to make you think evolution goes in jumps?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

From what I have read, the view that there were indeed 'jumps' rather than a smooth transition between states seems to be gathering support. But that hardly places the whole theory into question. There is no other sensible theory - certainly not coming from any religious direction.

"There is no other sensible theory - certainly not coming from any religious direction"

again that's almost a direct quote from Fred Hoyle supporting steady state against the Big Bang. -'religious pseudoscience-[] which cannot even be described in scientific terms'

You are only conceding your own ideological bias against questioning Darwinism. If the failure of Darwinian processes in accounting for life has any potential implications for ID, I have no particular bias against this, do you? Why not follow the evidence where it leads, regardless of the implications?

 

[ArtieE]

No but science is, we need a little more than unsupported speculation before we declare:

“Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact." Dawkins

But the thing is that we HAVE found lots of fossils, just not the ones Darwin and followers had hoped for. The gaps, jumps, stasis, explosions have become every more pronounced as the picture has filled in- not smoother, steadier as Darwin predicted

Do you have any actual evidence that anything was made by your god? Anything at all? Such as bones with "Copyright God" on them for example?

 

[ArtieE]

You are only conceding your own ideological bias against questioning Darwinism. If the failure of Darwinian processes in accounting for life has any potential implications for ID, I have no particular bias against this, do you? Why not follow the evidence where it leads, regardless of the implications?

Guy: A god made life on earth.
Me: Okay any evidence for that?
Guy: No...
Me: At least you can show that god(s) exist?
Guy: No...
Me: Then why would I take you seriously?

 

[Audie]

"There is no other sensible theory - certainly not coming from any religious direction"

again that's almost a direct quote from Fred Hoyle supporting steady state against the Big Bang. -'religious pseudoscience-[] which cannot even be described in scientific terms'

You are only conceding your own ideological bias against questioning Darwinism. If the failure of Darwinian processes in accounting for life has any potential implications for ID, I have no particular bias against this, do you? Why not follow the evidence where it leads, regardless of the implications?

Why not follow the evidence where it leads, regardless of the implications?

Could be excellent advice for you, for everyone.

Anyway, let us know if you have say, one, maybe two datum points that
are contrary to ToE.

You have some sort of evidence that it is wrong?

Coz if you do you should present it; if not,
this is SDF (seriously data free), this is senseless.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Do you have any actual evidence that anything was made by your god? Anything at all? Such as bones with "Copyright God" on them for example?

And the message could of course have been implanted in our DNA - perhaps we are still decoding this.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

We could see where your ideas of what is a belief and what is faith, and mine differ but-never mind that.

"Dawkins" is not "science" and he is of no interest to me. I dont really know why creationists are so fond of
talking about him.

I've been around scientists, actually quite a lot, and
I dont think you'd find a one who would talk "fact"
beyond something like, "it is a fact that this is my data".

Possibly, the big D is distinguishing between evolution as a process of whatever scope, and ToE, a theory.

Saying a theory is a fact is bonkers.

We agree here, Dawkins is the Al Gore of Darwinism, you sometimes wonder if he is a plant just to make the theory look bad!

Even the most entrenched creationist will generally say that there is "microevolution".

That ToE has been demonstrated to be sound beyond any reasonable doubt, i would say is so, in that all
known relevant data is consistent with the theory, anbd
no disproof has been discovered.

that's a pretty loose definition which we could arguably apply to ancient alien theories also..

Definitions of 'evidence' can get very tricky

We can test, repeat, observe, measure a plant thriving under added CO2
We cannot test, repeat, observe, measure, a single cell randomly mutating into a human being. There's no way around that, it is inherently speculative

Too if it were to be disproved, top to bottom, and the genesis account shown correct, it would blow a massive crater in all of the hard sciences, as so much
is interconnected. Dating and atomic theory. Etc.

Wont say it cannot happen, but it seems awful unlikely.

atomic theory blew a whole in classical physics, which was around even longer than ToE and declared so 'proven' as to be 'immutable'
The Big Bang was 'religious pseudoscience' for many atheists

the demise of ToE would not be the greatest trauma academic science has suffered, it stems from the same Victorian model of reality Newtonian physics did-
but with even greater ideological implications playing their part

As to ignorant, etc, well-

I myself have not encountered anyone who was at all well informed on evolution / science in general who
thinks it is false, tho there are intellectually dishonest persons like
the paleontologist Dr K Wise who famously said that if all the evidence
in the universe turned against creationism, he would still be a yec.

In the event, skipping the invidious adjectives (those are not ad homs btw)
from Dawkins or whoever...

Most people who dont accedpt ToE are in fact very ignorant of it. Whether they are morally weak, or simply insane, I will leave to the big D.

There is to my knowledge no reasonable basis for not accepting it as valid.

Reasonable, as based on actual data.

again it depends what we define as 'evolution' I am specifically skeptical of Darwinism, and there are plenty very well educated people who share this skepticism.

But where would following mere academic consensus put you in the days of Phrenology, steady state, Piltdown man? the right or wrong side?

Would you not agree, science is a method, not a opinion, that the whole point of science is NOT having to take anyone's word for it?