Evolution Observed

[Kenny]

But we well know that humans have also evolved and, as a matter of fact, we still are. The surveys of theologians I've seen do not remove humans from their consideration.

When I first started teaching anthro in the late 1960's, the oldest humans we had were dated at about 1 & 1/2 million years ago, but now we have human fossils that date back to 4 & 1/2 million years ago with a fairly recent find in Chad that's 6 million years old. However, with the Chad find, it has so many ape and human characteristics that, at least the last that I've read, they still are not willing to classify it as either one or the other, which is what we would expect to see as we get closer to that likely connection.

Here's a link to actually a half-way decent article on this as found at Wiki, and I think you'll see that your personal ancestry is much more ape-like than human : Human evolution - Wikipedia

Exactly, but the tree tends to be rather irregular with many dead branches (extinct forms). Evolution is not an A gradually evolves to B thingy, but more of a hodge-podge of A, some of which evolves on, some not, and only some may form new species B, maybe C, maybe more, maybe none. IOW, it's not a "pretty" tree.

To be honest! OMG, I can't believe I'm being honest!

I'm really have too many questions and am very congnizant of the fact that science continues to correct itself. (In the area of evoltuion and its efforts to promote atheism, I also have a bias inherit distrust. I look at the human being and all that is around and, quite frankily, I find it absurd for people to think there is not God. (My personal view).

Additionally, I don't think a billion years is enough to creat what we see by chance. I think it would take at leat a trillion years.

So, I let people be people that have different veiwpoints; don't make much to do about the differences; and remain with my viewpoints until someone says something that is convincing enough for me do consider my position.

 

[Zosimus]

Wow. Two birds had sex and produced offspring. That's proof positive that God couldn't exist, that Adam and Eve are a myth, and that Christians are ignorant. Hail Darwin!

 

[shunyadragon]

To be honest! OMG, I can't believe I'm being honest!

Unless you have an good back ground in math and genetics you are not being honest making assertions without an educational background to understand the science.

I'm really have too many questions and am very congnizant of the fact that science continues to correct itself. (In the area of evoltuion . . .

This actually positive in that science continues to correct itself over time. You got one thing right!

. . . and its efforts to promote atheism,

Please provide coherent references where science promotes atheism. You may cite some scientists that are atheists presenting their philosophical views, but not academic science found in the journals and textbooks that document evolution.

I will be waiting . . .

I also have a bias inherit distrust. I look at the human being and all that is around and, quite frankily, I find it absurd for people to think there is not God. (My personal view).

Not an issue if we are discussing the science of evolution, nor any science for that matter.

Additionally, I don't think a billion years is enough to create what we see by chance. I think it would take at least a trillion years.

First science does not create that is God's job.

You need a background in science, genetics and math before you can express an educated result. Nothing happens by chance in nature including evolution. If you understood the math of genetics than billions of year is more than enough.

 

[Subduction Zone]

To be honest! OMG, I can't believe I'm being honest!

Creationists rarely are, but let's see how you do.

I'm really have too many questions and am very congnizant of the fact that science continues to correct itself. (In the area of evoltuion and its efforts to promote atheism, I also have a bias inherit distrust. I look at the human being and all that is around and, quite frankily, I find it absurd for people to think there is not God. (My personal view).

Yes, science is continually improving itself and correcting past errors. The Bible has no method of self correction. As a result it is full of errors. Why on Earth would anyone prefer a self contradictory book full of errors that cannot correct itself? And your personal bias is not evidence.

Additionally, I don't think a billion years is enough to creat what we see by chance. I think it would take at leat a trillion years.

Luckily for us evolution is not based on chance. Surely you have been corrected on this error in the past. It appears that I was correct in my opening statement.

So, I let people be people that have different veiwpoints; don't make much to do about the differences; and remain with my viewpoints until someone says something that is convincing enough for me do consider my position.

But the problem appears that you will not let yourself understand. And now you have all but admitted that you are being dishonest. Perhaps you should learn what evidence is. That is a good starting point. The concept of scientific evidence is very easy to understand and it is also can be used as an honesty test. Once you understand that concept you will see that there is no evidence for creationism, you will understand why, and you will see that there are literally mountains of evidence that support the theory of evolution. Would you like to learn this simple concept?

 

[Kenny]

Creationists rarely are, but let's see how you do.



Yes, science is continually improving itself and correcting past errors. The Bible has no method of self correction. As a result it is full of errors. Why on Earth would anyone prefer a self contradictory book full of errors that cannot correct itself? And your personal bias is not evidence.



Luckily for us evolution is not based on chance. Surely you have been corrected on this error in the past. It appears that I was correct in my opening statement.



But the problem appears that you will not let yourself understand. And now you have all but admitted that you are being dishonest. Perhaps you should learn what evidence is. That is a good starting point. The concept of scientific evidence is very easy to understand and it is also can be used as an honesty test. Once you understand that concept you will see that there is no evidence for creationism, you will understand why, and you will see that there are literally mountains of evidence that support the theory of evolution. Would you like to learn this simple concept?

If this is the basis for a counter to what I said... you have fortified my belief.

 

[ChristineM]

If this is the basis for a counter to what I said... you have fortified my belief.

So you wouldn't like to learn? 'nuf said.

 

[shunyadragon]

If this is the basis for a counter to what I said... you have fortified my belief.

Respond to this . . .

Additionally, I don't think a billion years is enough to create what we see by chance. I think it would take at least a trillion years.
First science does not create that is God's job.

You need a background in science, genetics and math before you can express an educated result. Nothing happens by chance in nature including evolution. If you understood the math of genetics than billions of year is more than enough.

The variation in cause and effects in the events is documented as fractal, chaos theory, of events in our physical existence. Even if chaos is the description of variation it is not the cause. The cause is Natural Laws as documented by science with no other known cause.

Do you accept the physical geologic fossil evidence that thousands of feet of layers of rock reveal a progressive development of life from the simplist forms to the most complex?

 

[Kenny]

Unless you have an good back ground in math and genetics you are not being honest making assertions without an educational background to understand the science.

I understand. Unless I have a degree in every subject matter that exists, I cannot have an intelligible response to anything in those areas. Got it! And, obviously, you know me personally to be able to assert whether I am honest or not.

Please provide coherent references where science promotes atheism.

What is methodological naturalism?

You need a background in science, genetics and math before you can express an educated result.

If you don't have an intelligent response, just attack the person you are responding to. Got it!

The reason I like Metis, is because he doesn't attack people...he discusses.... intelligibly

 

[Subduction Zone]

I understand. Unless I have a degree in every subject matter that exists, I cannot have an intelligible response to anything in those areas. Got it! And, obviously, you know me personally to be able to assert whether I am honest or not.

He did not say that you needed a degree, just a minimum amount of education would be enough. You clearly do not have that. And your posts indicate a lack of honesty.

What is methodological naturalism?

Not atheism. Please note, it has a different name. It is merely a belief that events can be explained without relying on magic. Guess what? They can. This may help:


Naturalism (philosophy) - Wikipedia

If you don't have an intelligent response, just attack the person you are responding to. Got it!

The reason I like Metis, is because he doesn't attack people...he discusses.... intelligibly

Since you just attacked another you have showed yourself to be rather hypocritical.

Instead of making poor and dishonest arguments don't you think that it would be wiser to learn about what you are trying to debate first?

 

[shunyadragon]

I understand. Unless I have a degree in every subject matter that exists, I cannot have an intelligible response to anything in those areas. Got it! And, obviously, you know me personally to be able to assert whether I am honest or not.

Simply a good academic background in genetics and math is what is required, and not a degree in every subject matter that exists.

What is methodological naturalism?

From: Naturalism (philosophy) - Wikipedia
Methodological naturalism does not concern itself with claims about what exists, but with methods of learning what nature is. It attempts to explain and test scientific endeavors, hypotheses, and events with reference to natural causes and events. This second sense of the term "naturalism" seeks to provide a framework within which to conduct the scientific study of the laws of nature. Methodological naturalism is a way of acquiring knowledge. It is a distinct system of thought concerned with a cognitive approach to reality, and is thus a philosophy of knowledge. Studies by sociologist Elaine Ecklund suggest that religious scientists in practice apply methodological naturalism. They report that their religious beliefs affect the way they think about the implications - often moral - of their work, but not the way they practice science.

Ontological Naturalism (materialism and atheism)

Metaphysical naturalism, also called ontological naturalism, philosophical naturalism, and scientific materialism is a philosophical worldview, which holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences.

If you don't have an intelligent response, just attack the person you are responding to. Got it!

My response was not an attack as much as it is a challenge to honestly and objectively consider science as science.

The reason I like Metis, is because he doesn't attack people...he discusses.... intelligibly

My concerns and challenge is based on your claim of being honest and your misuse of science for example your misuse of 'chance.'

I asked specific questions and made clarifications on the problem of using chance and your view of genetics. You have failed to respond.

 

[Jose Fly]

Is @KenS repeating that long-running creationist misconception that methodological naturalism = philosophical naturalism?

That's almost as common among creationists as the ridiculous "it's only a theory" talking point.

 

[Deeje]

Unless you have an good back ground in math and genetics you are not being honest making assertions without an educational background to understand the science.

So the uneducated must trust the educated to find the truth....? What if the educated are dead wrong and mislead the masses of uneducated ones down the wrong track?
That is the reason, I believe that Jesus did not choose the educated ones to be his apostles in the first century. The educated ones were badly educated by those who became corrupted by their so-called knowledge. (1 Corinthians 8:1) It led the whole nation astray and prevented them from accepting Jesus as their Christ.

This actually positive in that science continues to correct itself over time. You got one thing right!

So it has no business ever claiming its teachings as "facts"....and yet it does. When science says something "might have" or "could have" happened, it will be interpreted as "must have" in order for it to appear to be a fact....which it never was. It is nothing but supposition and there are no real facts to back up a thing they claim for macro-evolution. Adaptation will never produce a new "kind" of anything....it will only produce a new variety of any given species in a taxonomic group.

Please provide coherent references where science promotes atheism. You may cite some scientists that are atheists presenting their philosophical views, but not academic science found in the journals and textbooks that document evolution.

I will be waiting . . .

Well the rantings and ridicule presented by the likes of Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne have certainly had an influence on their audiences.......what sticks in the minds of students.....the dry words of books or the words of influential teachers?

Not an issue if we are discussing the science of evolution, nor any science for that matter.

To remove all mention of the Creator from the topic of science is to remove the scientist from all mention of science. The originator of science is the Creator. He created what scientists study...how ironic.

First science does not create that is God's job.

No, its science's job to tell the truth, but I don't see much of that. When speculation and dodgy interpretation of evidence is so biastly presented as fact, then, Houston, we have a problem. Truth is the casualty.

You need a background in science, genetics and math before you can express an educated result. Nothing happens by chance in nature including evolution. If you understood the math of genetics than billions of year is more than enough.

You tend to worship education (especially science) as something that sets people apart from the 'uneducated'. That is something that the Pharisees did in Jesus' day. They treated the uneducated like 'dirt'...unworthy of their attention. Do we see the same attitude from the learned ones among us here?

It isn't an education in science that will 'save' anyone. It is an education in the will of the Creator that will be of benefit at the end of the day. Perhaps we should focus on that a little more?

A knowledge of science is a wonderful thing and benefits us in our appreciation of the Creator's ability to form the universe and the most exquisite creatures to inhabit this earth with us, but it should never lead us away from him. If it does, then it isn't true science IMO.

 

[ChristineM]

So the uneducated must trust the educated to find the truth....? What if the educated are dead wrong and mislead the masses of uneducated ones down the wrong track?
That is the reason, I believe that Jesus did not choose the educated ones to be his apostles in the first century. The educated ones were badly educated by those who became corrupted by their so-called knowledge. (1 Corinthians 8:1) It led the whole nation astray and prevented them from accepting Jesus as their Christ.



So it has no business ever claiming its teachings as "facts"....and yet it does. When science says something "might have" or "could have" happened, it will be interpreted as "must have" in order for it to appear to be a fact....which it never was. It is nothing but supposition and there are no real facts to back up a thing they claim for macro-evolution. Adaptation will never produce a new "kind" of anything....it will only produce a new variety of any given species in a taxonomic group.



Well the rantings and ridicule presented by the likes of Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne have certainly had an influence on their audiences.......what sticks in the minds of students.....the dry words of books or the words of influential teachers?



To remove all mention of the Creator from the topic of science is to remove the scientist from all mention of science. The originator of science is the Creator. He created what scientists study...how ironic.



No, its science's job to tell the truth, but I don't see much of that. When speculation and dodgy interpretation of evidence is so biastly presented as fact, then, Houston, we have a problem. Truth is the casualty.



You tend to worship education (especially science) as something that sets people apart from the 'uneducated'. That is something that the Pharisees did in Jesus' day. They treated the uneducated like 'dirt'...unworthy of their attention. Do we see the same attitude from the learned ones among us here?

It isn't an education in science that will 'save' anyone. It is an education in the will of the Creator that will be of benefit at the end of the day. Perhaps we should focus on that?

A knowledge of science is a wonderful thing and benefits us in our appreciation of the Creator's ability to form the universe and the most exquisite creatures to inhabit this earth with us, but it should never lead us away from him. If it does, then it isn't true science IMO.

 

[Jose Fly]

So the uneducated must trust the educated to find the truth....?

Isn't that pretty much the case in all subject matters that involve specified knowledge? When your computer glitches, you consult with someone with education/training in that area. The same is true of car repairs, plumbing, electrical work, neurosurgery, etc.

Unless you're the type of person who consults random people off the street, then your objection seems a bit hypocritical.

Oh and btw.....earlier you claimed that "true" and "provable" science supports your religious beliefs. But when I asked you to support that claim, you ignored it. Care to explain why?

 

[Jose Fly]

I've been fascinated over the last several years watching various Christian groups become increasingly anti-education and anti-intellectualism, while at the same time they lament the dramatic fall of Christianity among the young. And even when they're shown survey results indicating that their anti-science attitude is a factor in the decline, they refuse to do anything other than double down.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So the uneducated must trust the educated to find the truth....? What if the educated are dead wrong and mislead the masses of uneducated ones down the wrong track?
That is the reason, I believe that Jesus did not choose the educated ones to be his apostles in the first century. The educated ones were badly educated by those who became corrupted by their so-called knowledge. (1 Corinthians 8:1) It led the whole nation astray and prevented them from accepting Jesus as their Christ.

First off why would anyone lead people down the wrong track? Second the sciences all must be independently testable. When countless people keep testing an idea and keep finding it to be valid on can be fairly sure that it is correct.

And if you want to claim that their education is corrupted the burden of proof is upon you. The Bible is not a reliable source for you since that is what is being disputed in the first place. If I had said "I am right because I say that I am right" I would be doing pretty much what you are doing with the Bible.

So it has no business ever claiming its teachings as "facts"....and yet it does. When science says something "might have" or "could have" happened, it will be interpreted as "must have" in order for it to appear to be a fact....which it never was. It is nothing but supposition and there are no real facts to back up a thing they claim for macro-evolution. Adaptation will never produce a new "kind" of anything....it will only produce a new variety of any given species in a taxonomic group.

Facts are concepts that have been tested and found to be correct many times over. If you are willing to accept that gravity is a fact then you should be willing to accept that evolution is a fact. And you can't refute a science when you have no understanding of it. Why don't you try to learn?

Well the rantings and ridicule presented by the likes of Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne have certainly had an influence on their audiences.......what sticks in the minds of students.....the dry words of books or the words of influential teachers?

More bearing of false witness. There are no "rants". There may be ridicule, but if you are honest you have to admit that those on your side went out of their way to earn that ridicule. Complaining about that is hypocritical.

To remove all mention of the Creator from the topic of science is to remove the scientist from all mention of science. The originator of science is the Creator. He created what scientists study...how ironic.

If you want to claim that your "Creator" exists once again the burden of proof is upon those on your side. The problem is that there is no reliable evidence for a this creator. Why should it be in books at all?

No, its science's job to tell the truth, but I don't see much of that. When speculation and dodgy interpretation of evidence is so biastly presented as fact, then, Houston, we have a problem. Truth is the casualty.

Projection again.

You tend to worship education (especially science) as something that sets people apart from the 'uneducated'. That is something that the Pharisees did in Jesus' day. They treated the uneducated like 'dirt'...unworthy of their attention. Do we see the same attitude from the learned ones among us here?

No, education has an earned respect. Worship is your flaw, not ours.

It isn't an education in science that will 'save' anyone. It is an education in the will of the Creator that will be of benefit at the end of the day. Perhaps we should focus on that?

Once again, where is the evidence for said Creator.

A knowledge of science is a wonderful thing and benefits us in our appreciation of the Creator's ability to form the universe and the most exquisite creatures to inhabit this earth with us, but it should never lead us away from him. If it does, then it isn't true science IMO.

That is what it does. Most Christians realize that. The fact that your beliefs are shown to be wrong does not mean that it totally refutes your mythical God. It only refutes the "God of Genesis". There are countless Christians, probably most Christians worldwide, that accept reality.

 

[ChristineM]

I've been fascinated over the last several years watching various Christian groups become increasingly anti-education and anti-intellectualism, while at the same time they lament the dramatic fall of Christianity among the young. And even when they're shown survey results indicating that their anti-science attitude is a factor in the decline, they refuse to do anything other than double down.

It is certainty an interesting and educational pastime. ;-)

 

[shunyadragon]

So the uneducated must trust the educated to find the truth....?

Well . . . that is not what I proposed, but if you refuse to get educated do not assert knowledge that reflects the subject (science). Same applies to knowledge of the Bible. If I was saying something is literally in the Bible, and it is not there I would be making an uneducated assertion, and wrong. Statements were made by @KenS about science that are not science.

 

[metis]

To be honest! OMG, I can't believe I'm being honest!

Me neither!!!

(In the area of evoltuion and its efforts to promote atheism, I also have a bias inherit distrust. I look at the human being and all that is around and, quite frankily, I find it absurd for people to think there is not God

With all my classwork in anthropology that I took, not one professor or one book of mine on the subject ever stated or suggested that there could not be a creator-god. Literally, not one. And the last survey of Christian theologians that I've seen has it that about 70%, I believe, accept the basic concept of evolution, albeit that God was the ultimate cause.

Additionally, I don't think a billion years is enough to create what we see by chance.

Can you really imagine even one billion years? With me being olde-- er, I mean more mature -- than you, I'm at least a bit closer to understanding what a billion years might entail.

One of the first things I discovered when I started teaching anthropology is that so many students had things that were "attached" to their concept of evolution that really aren't part & parcel to what the basic ToE actually involves. Neither atheism nor theism are either implicit or denied, as evolution is a process, not a beginning nor an end. Nor is it all based on "chance", and maybe none of it is!

So, listen to your elder, Junior!

 

[shunyadragon]

The reason I like Metis, is because he doesn't attack people...he discusses.... intelligibly

Looks like Metis broke your heart. He was as blunt if not more so than I, and like me he has the background in science. He is also very honest.

 

[Kenny]

You need a background in science, genetics and math before you can express an educated result. Nothing happens by chance in nature including evolution. If you understood the math of genetics than billions of year is more than enough.

OK... then I can rely on this partial list of people?

Hmmm... I believe James Allan is a geneticist.

• Creationist
• Genetics
• Ph.D. in genetics from the University of Edinburgh, Scotland
• M.S. in agriculture from the University of Stellenbosch, South Africa
• B.S. in agriculture from the University of Natal
• Former senior lecturer in genetics at the University of Stellenbosch
• International consultant in dairy cattle breeding

Can I accept his position because he is educated? If not, why? Do yo have a PhD in genetics?