Creationists, please provide evidence

[Subby]

Oh, so you don't actually have a single peer reviewed article to support your outrageous and false claim?
Uh no, my point is just that Biology, and ToE, use the same assumptions and the same philosophy as the rest of science. If you oppose them, then you oppose science. You can't separate them.

Your philosophical conclusions are based on lack of evidence or observation. That is the point. Your philosophical conclusions rest on change above phenotype expression, which is NOT observed (molecules to man, etc), meanwhile the philosophical conclusion of creationism would posit the same change seen now happened in the past with many original base patterns for plural processes of biological evolution.

No, it's not. Methodological naturalism is fundamental to the scientific method. No methodological naturalism, no science. And of course, science, including ToE, takes no position on philosophical materialism or naturalism. To say it does is false.

Mine are the assumptions that every scientist makes to do science.

Methodological naturalism or scientific naturalism is clearly accepted within creationism. I am talking about philosophical conclusions not based on observation, namely change above phenotype expression.

Uh, o.k., whatever.

Yes but I'm having a heck of a time following them. It would help if you'd answer my questions. You haven't established that yet. Well apparently I share that problem with all of modern science, while you share yours with the charlatans at the Discovery Institute, so I'm in good company.

Now, do you have a hypothesis, or not?

YOUR philosophy relys upon change above phenotype. Here are some links that you couldn't bother to search for.
Evolution of the Drosophila Feminizing Switch Gene... [Genetics. 2010] - PubMed result
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20796293

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Methodological naturalism or scientific naturalism is clearly accepted within creationism.

You're kidding, right?

Creationism, at its root, posits a supernatural cause. That is the antithesis of naturalism.

 

[Subby]

You're kidding, right?

Creationism, at its root, posits a supernatural cause. That is the antithesis of naturalism.

It posits ID which is an inference based in nature. The philosophy then of creationism is also supernaturalism.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

It posits ID which is an inference based in nature. The philosophy then of creationism is also supernaturalism.

You can't have it both ways. Simply because ID makes inferences based on nature doesn't mean it's naturalistic. Naturalism explains phenomenon using natural explanations, hence the name. A creator, or intelligent designer, would certainly not fit that description.

Neither creationism nor ID are naturalistic.

 

[Subby]

You can't have it both ways. Simply because ID makes inferences based on nature doesn't mean it's naturalistic. Naturalism explains phenomenon using natural explanations, hence the name. A creator, or intelligent designer, would certainly not fit that description.

Neither creationism nor ID are naturalistic.

Intelligent design is all around us in nature. Why do you think your philosophy is better because it has abiogenesis which is found NOWHERE readily to point to unless ID'd to happen by scientists?

ID seems to be screaming at us. ID in biology is merely naturally assumed.

 

[RedOne77]

Your philosophical conclusions are based on lack of evidence or observation. That is the point. Your philosophical conclusions rest on change above phenotype expression, which is NOT observed (molecules to man, etc), meanwhile the philosophical conclusion of creationism would posit the same change seen now happened in the past with many original base patterns for plural processes of biological evolution.

What do you mean by "change above phenotype expression"? We've certainly seen speciation if that's what you mean.

Methodological naturalism or scientific naturalism is clearly accepted within creationism. I am talking about philosophical conclusions not based on observation, namely change above phenotype expression.

So, what about geology, paleontology, chemistry and astronomy?

YOUR philosophy relys upon change above phenotype. Here are some links that you couldn't bother to search for.
Evolution of the Drosophila Feminizing Switch Gene... [Genetics. 2010] - PubMed result
Single locus affects embryonic segment polarity an... [BMC Biol. 2010] - PubMed result

And these show that changes above the phenotype (whatever that means?) is impossible? Please explain.

 

[Subby]

What do you mean by "change above phenotype expression"? We've certainly seen speciation if that's what you mean.



So, what about geology, paleontology, chemistry and astronomy?



And these show that changes above the phenotype (whatever that means?) is impossible? Please explain.

You guys don't know what phenotype expression is?!

Speciation is supported within creationism.

I did explain in the same post regarding different change types... Please read my posts.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Intelligently design is all around us in nature. Why do you think your philosophy is better because it has abiogenesis which is found NOWHERE readily to point to unless ID'd to happen by scientists?

ID seems to be screaming at us. ID in biology is merely naturally assumed.

Actually, intelligent design isn't "all around us" or "screaming at us". ID is one big argument from ignorance.

"I don't understand how this complex system could have evolved naturally, therefore it didn't."

Besides, I don't reject ID or creationism because I think Abiogenesis is better. I reject creationism and ID because they have no evidence to support them. There is no theoretical model for either beyond "god did it" an both are based upon numerous logical fallacies. If you want to convince me that your model is correct then don't worry about blowing the other model full of holes (it doesn't actually help your case). Instead, try finding evidence that supports your assertions.

 

[Subby]

Actually, intelligent design isn't "all around us" or "screaming at us". ID is one big argument from ignorance.

"I don't understand how this complex system could have evolved naturally, therefore it didn't."

Nope, has NOTHING to do with how the complex system evolved, but how the life it represents and nature that diversifies that life got there to begin with.

Besides, I don't reject ID or creationism because I think Abiogenesis is better. I reject creationism and ID because they have no evidence to support them. There is no theoretical model for either beyond "god did it" an both are based upon numerous logical fallacies. If you want to convince me that your model is correct then don't worry about blowing the other model full of holes (it doesn't actually help your case). Instead, try finding evidence that supports your assertions.

How do we know abiogenesis is a viable mechanism for the origin of life, not the diversification of that life?

Because scientists intelligently designed it to happen. Again ID is screaming at us.

 

[Autodidact]

Your philosophical conclusions are based on lack of evidence or observation.

What philosophical conclusions?

That is the point. Your philosophical conclusions rest on change above phenotype expression, which is NOT observed (molecules to man, etc),

Science isn't limited to what we observe. What you're arguing against is doing science. Science is all about drawing conclusions.

meanwhile the philosophical conclusion of creationism would posit the same change seen now happened in the past with many original base patterns for plural processes of biological evolution.

Your position, subby. What is your hypothesis? Is there some reason you can't just say what you mean? Are you trying to say that you accept ToE in its entirely, except that you believe there were many original ancestors rather than one? Are you claiming that is a scientific hypothesis? If so, we can talk evidence.

Methodological naturalism or scientific naturalism is clearly accepted within creationism.

Subby, you can't make any definitive claim about creationism. Since creationists don't share the scientific method, they have no way of reaching consensus. Therefore they're all over the map. I don't think most creationists even know what that means, frankly. They seem to think ToE is atheism plus abiogenesis. If you're saying that you accept methodological naturalism, then it sounds like you share the same assumptions as modern science, and as me, so what are you arguing against?

I am talking about philosophical conclusions not based on observation, namely change above phenotype expression.

What you're calling a philosophical conclusion is one of the most important, and well-founded, theories in the history of science. If you reject the methodology, you reject the scientific method. If you use the scientific method, you get ToE, which is why it's the consensus foundation of modern Biology.

If you think not, then show us, don't tell us.

YOUR philosophy relys upon change above phenotype. Here are some links that you couldn't bother to search for.

Why would I search for links for your argument, Subby? That's your job.
Evolution of the Drosophila Feminizing Switch Gene... [Genetics. 2010] - PubMed result
Single locus affects embryonic segment polarity an... [BMC Biol. 2010] - PubMed result[/quote]

I'm sorry, I don't in the least see how those articles support your assertion that evolution is limited to phenotypic expression. Actually I don't even know what on earth you mean by that--perhaps you could explain it.

What is your hypothesis for how we get all the various species on earth? btw, I think it's rather rude--or cowardly--to ignore polite questions in response to your posts.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Nope, has NOTHING to do with how the complex system evolved, but how the life it represents and nature that diversifies that life got there to begin with.

and your hypothesis for how that life got there is...?

How do we know abiogenesis is a viable mechanism for the origin of life, not the diversification of that life?

I'm not an expert on Abiogenesis, don't claim to be. If you want to discuss abiogenesis then you'll have to find someone better versed in it.

Because scientists intelligently designed it to happen. Again ID is screaming at us.

I don't quite understand what you're getting at here.

 

[Subby]

What philosophical conclusions? Science isn't limited to what we observe. What you're arguing against is doing science. Science is all about drawing conclusions. Your position, subby. What is your hypothesis? Is there some reason you can't just say what you mean? Are you trying to say that you accept ToE in its entirely, except that you believe there were many original ancestors rather than one? Are you claiming that is a scientific hypothesis? If so, we can talk evidence.
Subby, you can't make any definitive claim about creationism. Since creationists don't share the scientific method, they have no way of reaching consensus. Therefore they're all over the map. I don't think most creationists even know what that means, frankly. They seem to think ToE is atheism plus abiogenesis. If you're saying that you accept methodological naturalism, then it sounds like you share the same assumptions as modern science, and as me, so what are you arguing against? What you're calling a philosophical conclusion is one of the most important, and well-founded, theories in the history of science. If you reject the methodology, you reject the scientific method. If you use the scientific method, you get ToE, which is why it's the consensus foundation of modern Biology.

If you think not, then show us, don't tell us.

Why would I search for links for your argument, Subby? That's your job.
Evolution of the Drosophila Feminizing Switch Gene... [Genetics. 2010] - PubMed result
Single locus affects embryonic segment polarity an... [BMC Biol. 2010] - PubMed result

I'm sorry, I don't in the least see how those articles support your assertion that evolution is limited to phenotypic expression. Actually I don't even know what on earth you mean by that--perhaps you could explain it.

What is your hypothesis for how we get all the various species on earth? btw, I think it's rather rude--or cowardly--to ignore polite questions in response to your posts.[/quote]

You don't know what phenotype expression means yet you sit here as if you know biological evolution.

 

[Autodidact]

It posits ID which is an inference based in nature.

What posits ID? Instead of talking about creationism, since that has so many different meanings, maybe you could tell us what you mean by the term. I believe I asked you this in response to your first post. It would have been polite and helpful had you answered it. Oh, and ID is bunk.

The philosophy then of creationism is also supernaturalism.

Well which is it, naturalism, or supernaturalism?

 

[Autodidact]

Intelligent design is all around us in nature.

So you assert, without support.

Why do you think your philosophy is better because it has abiogenesis which is found NOWHERE readily to point to unless ID'd to happen by scientists?

Why do you keep talking about something that has nothing to do with this thread, abiogenesis?

ID seems to be screaming at us. ID in biology is merely naturally assumed.

By whom?

 

[Subby]

and your hypothesis for how that life got there is...?



I'm not an expert on Abiogenesis, don't claim to be. If you want to discuss abiogenesis then you'll have to find someone better versed in it.



I don't quite understand what you're getting at here.

ID is screaming at you.

 

[Autodidact]

You guys don't know what phenotype expression is?!

We don't know what the heck you are trying to say. Your writing style is extremely opaque.

Speciation is supported within creationism.

Within YOUR creationism, you mean. Remember, there is no single thing called "creationism," and since you haven't done us the courtesy of explaining what you mean by the term, it's ridiculous to pretend that this is clear. What you mean is, you accept speciation. Great, now we know one thing about your hypothesis. Here, let's try this: Do you accept or reject the Theory of Evolution?

I did explain in the same post regarding different change types... Please read my posts.

You have us utterly baffled.

 

[Autodidact]

Nope, has NOTHING to do with how the complex system evolved, but how the life it represents and nature that diversifies that life got there to begin with.

So you only want to argue about abiogenesis? Maybe you should start a thread about it.

How do we know abiogenesis is a viable mechanism for the origin of life, not the diversification of that life?

Start a thread.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

ID is screaming at you.

I've already explained what ID is.

You didn't answer my question, by the way.

What is your hypothesis for the origin of life?

 

[Autodidact]

I'm sorry, I don't in the least see how those articles support your assertion that evolution is limited to phenotypic expression. Actually I don't even know what on earth you mean by that--perhaps you could explain it.

What is your hypothesis for how we get all the various species on earth? btw, I think it's rather rude--or cowardly--to ignore polite questions in response to your posts.

You don't know what phenotype expression means yet you sit here as if you know biological evolution.[/quote]

Yes, I do. I don't understand what you mean by saying that it limits evolution. That makes about as much sense to me as saying apples love softy. Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain. I don't know whether you accept ToE, or reject it. After agreeing not to talk about abiogenesis, you continue to drone on and on about it. You say you're in favor of science, yet you reject it. You don't make any sense to me.

Is anyone else getting anything coherent from our new friend?

 

[Subby]

Yes, I do. I don't understand what you mean by saying that it limits evolution. That makes about as much sense to me as saying apples love softy. Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain. I don't know whether you accept ToE, or reject it. After agreeing not to talk about abiogenesis, you continue to drone on and on about it. You say you're in favor of science, yet you reject it. You don't make any sense to me.

Is anyone else getting anything coherent from our new friend?

All we observe in nature through scientific observation is phenotype change!