For Evolutionists and a Few Open Minded Creationists

[Misunderstood]

Hey, @Misunderstood , hope you're well. I'm an IDer, a creationist I guess, but not a Young Earth Creationist (YEC).
The evidence from geology and astronomy supports an ancient Earth and this presents no conflict with the Scriptures, in my understanding. Just curious, are you a YEC?

@Skwim , I have a question: can you provide more information on those 9 species of fish in the shallow waters off Australia? Thanks.

I do not consider myself firmly in any one category.

• Geneses 1:1-3 I feel can support a very old earth.
• 
  
• I have heard the Gap theory; where Gods starts creation and pauses for a while.
• 
  
• Of course there is the 1 year is like a thousand years to God.
• 
  
• Geneses 2:4 says "4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,"
• Some feel that each day may represent a period of time.

Those are just a few, there are many more, that is all I can think of for now. I feel anyone could be right, so I will not go against anyone who holds a different view on creation. But, I would say for myself I would be closer to a YEC, just because it is what I was first taught, I guess.

 

[shunyadragon]

OK, to say all of evaluation is false and I feel would be dishonest, as there are parts of evolution that has some pretty compelling evidence. So I see that and would agree. However, to say or imply that evolution is abiogenesis, or abiogenesis holds as much evidence and is as compelling as all of evolution is wrong also. That is where the Creation verses evolution argument seems to go off track.

The OP's video states 'Creationists are fools', I think most all Creationists believe some parts of evolution, how much depends on the person. But, Creations believe life was created by God, that I believe. Whereas, an an atheist (maybe agnostic's also) evolutionist believes in abiogenesis.

I would like to side step the video, because it has strong dogmatic statements that are problematic with clarification. I consider the fundamentalist view of the science of evolution most definitely dishonest.Nonetheless the selective acceptance of evolution based on a religious agenda outside science is as much a problem, because the science of evolution is intricately interrelated with many sciences such as the many disciplines of biology (genetics, physiology and biochemistry), and geology, including paleontology. The evidence from the different disciplines support each others evidence.

Many theists, like myself, also a scientist, have no problem with supporting the science of evolution and abiogenesis. These sciences are religiously neutral based on Methodological Naturalism. It is OK with me if you include abiogenesis in the discussion, but you must realize it is a separate discipline, and actually considering the contempory research has a strong foundation in science. The fact that many details are not known is a given, but 'arguing from ignorance' against abiogenesis is a fallacy.

 

[Misunderstood]

At any rate back to abiogenesis. Evolution does not depend upon a specific source of first life. It could have arisen naturally, abiogenesis, been supplied somehow from space, panspermia, or the first organism may have been magically poofed into existence. There is some reliable evidence for abiogenesis. I do not know of any evidence for the others.

Thank you for your last post. Maybe I am reading to much into it. But, I feel we are closer together on this part than we are apart.

1. I feel there are three avenues life started on earth, God or some space alien (in other words a Being created us). Who knows maybe we are an Alien's high school science project.

2. Life began somewhere else and was transported to earth. Like an asteroid or panspermia.

3. Or some chemical process was able to generate life here on earth.

I feel most thoughts on the beginning of life fit into these categories. Evolution then starts from here after life has began. A Creationist just believes it was Number 1 a God. After, that a Creationist can believe in evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do not consider myself firmly in any one category.

• Geneses 1:1-3 I feel can support a very old earth.
• 
  
• I have heard the Gap theory; where Gods starts creation and pauses for a while.
• 
  
• Of course there is the 1 year is like a thousand years to God.
• 
  
• Geneses 2:4 says "4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,"
• Some feel that each day may represent a period of time.

Those are just a few, there are many more, that is all I can think of for now. I feel anyone could be right, so I will not go against anyone who holds a different view on creation. But, I would say for myself I would be closer to a YEC, just because it is what I was first taught, I guess.

Since we are trying to discuss science we should be using scientific terms. There is no such thing as the "Gap theory". To be a scientific theory an idea has to be testable. There must be a reasonable test, based upon facts not known at the time that the theory was formed, that could refute it. A theory must also make predictions. For example the fossil record was very poor in Darwin's time. He predicted that it would be filled out with organisms, all of which fit into the theory of evolution paradigm, would exist. And that was what we found. He predicted that fossils with traits of both older and younger species would exist. The first such famous fossil was Archeopteryx. It has both "dinosaur" features and bird features. And its bird features it does have are often half way to that of its dinosaur ancestors.

When I ask creationists what reasonable test would refute their "theories" I tend to get a blank look in response telling me instantly that they do not have a theory at all. They do not even have a scientific hypothesis. What they have is a WAG (Wild Donkeyed Guess).

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thank you for your last post. Maybe I am reading to much into it. But, I feel we are closer together on this part than we are apart.

1. I feel there are three avenues life started on earth, God or some space alien (in other words a Being created us). Who knows maybe we are an Alien's high school science project.

2. Life began somewhere else and was transported to earth. Like an asteroid or panspermia.

3. Or some chemical process was able to generate life here on earth.

I feel most thoughts on the beginning of life fit into these categories. Evolution then starts from here after life has began. A Creationist just believes it was Number 1 a God. After, that a Creationist can believe in evolution.

There are all sorts of "creationists" out there. What you described was more of someone that believes in theological evolution, life evolved but God had a hand in it. They accept the obvious. That all life arose from a single source. For some reason they do not think that God could have created an Earth where life arose on its own. I do not have a huge problem with these sorts of "creationists" except for the fact that there is no scientific evidence at all for that belief.

 

[shunyadragon]

Thank you for your last post. Maybe I am reading to much into it. But, I feel we are closer together on this part than we are apart.

1. I feel there are three avenues life started on earth, God or some space alien (in other words a Being created us). Who knows maybe we are an Alien's high school science project.

2. Life began somewhere else and was transported to earth. Like an asteroid or panspermia.

3. Or some chemical process was able to generate life here on earth.

I feel most thoughts on the beginning of life fit into these categories. Evolution then starts from here after life has began. A Creationist just believes it was Number 1 a God. After, that a Creationist can believe in evolution.

The evidence supports #3, but not with this poor wording. Generate is a bad anthropomorphic word. Abiogenesis is the science of the natural processes in a natural environment resulting in the first living organisms. At present the Ocean sea floor vents are the best candidates, because of the ideal environment and the fact that the earliest simplist forms of life are found from this environment.

 

[Audie]

Some fish have lungs as well. They are not just gill breathers:

Lungfish - Wikipedia

I used to think that lungs evolved from the swim bladder of fish. Now it appears to be the other way around. Primitive lungs evolved into the swim bladder in modern fish:

Swim bladder - Wikipedia

A lot of cutaneous respiraton in fish,
unsurprising as gills are specialized skin
tissue.

 

[Misunderstood]

There are all sorts of "creationists" out there. What you described was more of someone that believes in theological evolution, life evolved but God had a hand in it. They accept the obvious. That all life arose from a single source. For some reason they do not think that God could have created an Earth where life arose on its own. I do not have a huge problem with these sorts of "creationists" except for the fact that there is no scientific evidence at all for that belief.

I said I needed to do a few thing today, and I need to get going. So I will be away for a few hours. I will check in this evening. But I will make one last post before I go.

In post #5 you said.

By the way, your first error is conflating creationism with Christianity. Most Christians probably do not believe the myths of Genesis. In fact to do so you call God a liar, though you probably do not realize it. There are countless Christians that accept the theory of evolution.

You were right in correcting me on this. In the video it seemed to me anyway, it was about Christianity, but you were right it was about Creationists, and I have tried to correct myself on that. It has made this a lot easier as we have established, anyway I think we have established that to be a Creationist a person only needs to believe that life was Created by some being. Do we agree on this?

So as stated in the OP Video, to say Creationists are Idiots would be going a bit far? And if not why would someone be an idiot for just believing that one thing?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I said I needed to do a few thing today, and I need to get going. So I will be away for a few hours. I will check in this evening. But I will make one last post before I go.

In post #5 you said.



You were right in correcting me on this. In the video it seemed to me anyway, it was about Christianity, but you were right it was about Creationists, and I have tried to correct myself on that. It has made this a lot easier as we have established, anyway I think we have established that to be a Creationist a person only needs to believe that life was Created by some being. Do we agree on this?

So as stated in the OP Video, to say Creationists are Idiots would be going a bit far? And if not why would someone be an idiot for just believing that one thing?

Usually I draw the line at whether they accept common descent or not. In other words if one is not afraid to admit that man is an ape and that there never were only two people then I would classify them as believing in theistic evolution and not as being creationists.

 

[joe1776]

Your digging your hole deeper. Science is based on knowledge based on objective verifiable evidence and not 'opinion.' Opinion would the subjective view of and individual, and that is not the case in science. Are you actually proposing that the objective knowledge of science is based on 'opinion?

You aren't reading carefully. I didn't write that science is based on opinion. I wrote:

"My objection to your comment is that it is useless in debate because there is no earthly reason to expect that someone whose beliefs, based on faith alone, should be persuaded by your opinion that science should trump faith."

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Here's a bit of information:
Handfish - Wikipedia
Spotted handfish photo - Brachionichthys hirsutus - G118462

And a video: handfish - Yahoo Video Search Results

Thank you!

 

[Audie]

You aren't reading carefully. I didn't write that science is based on opinion. I wrote:

"My objection to your comment is that it is useless in debate because there is no earthly reason to expect that someone whose beliefs, based on faith alone, should be persuaded by your opinion that science should trump faith."

That kind of person is immune to logic,
facts, or common sense, so we dont
expect much of anything to persuade
them that they even have the capacity to err, on
anything like the deepest mysteries of the
universe; to them they already know, and they
achieved such lofty ststus via the absurd route
of having the right attitude!!

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I would like to side step the video, because it has strong dogmatic statements that are problematic with clarification. I consider the fundamentalist view of the science of evolution most definitely dishonest.Nonetheless the selective acceptance of evolution based on a religious agenda outside science is as much a problem, because the science of evolution is intricately interrelated with many sciences such as the many disciplines of biology (genetics, physiology and biochemistry), and geology, including paleontology. The evidence from the different disciplines support each others evidence.

Many theists, like myself, also a scientist, have no problem with supporting the science of evolution and abiogenesis. These sciences are religiously neutral based on Methodological Naturalism. It is OK with me if you include abiogenesis in the discussion, but you must realize it is a separate discipline, and actually considering the contempory research has a strong foundation in science. The fact that many details are not known is a given, but 'arguing from ignorance' against abiogenesis is a fallacy.

Are you calling abiogenesis, science?!

It is not. It is philiosophy, only an hypothesis

 

[Audie]

Ah yes, you are from Hong Kong, aren't you? I was born in Edinburgh, as it happens.

One of my grandfathers was professor of Ecclesiastical History at Glasgow, and had been a Methodist missionary in Canton (in the pre-Mao era). My father was born there. He remembers being taken down the Pearl River for holidays in Hong Kong as a small boy. (Or have I told you this already - sometimes I forget?)

HK, yes.

I expect your Dad would be inpressed with the
changes there. Of course, most everywhere
seems to change faster and faster.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you calling abiogenesis, science?!

It is not. It is philiosophy, only an hypothesis

Your side does not even have a hypothesis. Actually there are several hypotheses of abiogenesis describing different steps in the process. There is no overarching theory of abiogenesis yet so the work is still hypothetical. That still beats a fairy tale hands down.

 

[Skwim]

Hey, @Misunderstood , hope you're well. I'm an IDer, a creationist I guess, but not a Young Earth Creationist (YEC).
The evidence from geology and astronomy supports an ancient Earth and this presents no conflict with the Scriptures, in my understanding. Just curious, are you a YEC?

@Skwim , I have a question: can you provide more information on those 9 species of fish in the shallow waters off Australia? Thanks.

A quick search only brought up four. From a National Geographic web site the four (with photos) are the:

1) Pink handfish
2) Spotted handfish
3) Red handfish
4) Ziebell's handfish
source

.
​

 

[viole]

I do not consider 'faith' to be synonymous with ignorance. That is too broad a comparison. I consider 'blind faith' to be comparable to ignorance.

Is there such a thing as not blind faith?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Polymath257]

Are you calling abiogenesis, science?!

It is not. It is philiosophy, only an hypothesis

Well, the science aspect is the study of the biochemistry of the molecules involved in life, how they can originate, how they self-organize, and what a minimal collection of chemicals would be for life, the types of metabolism involved, etc.

These are topics that are actively researched by scientists and serve to elucidate issues related to abiogenesis. And, the more research that is done, the more likely abiogenesis is to have been the case.

 

[Skwim]

I feel most thoughts on the beginning of life fit into these categories. Evolution then starts from here after life has began. A Creationist just believes it was Number 1 a God. After, that a Creationist can believe in evolution.

But other than microevolution perhaps, they don't. Creationism, as it pits itself against evolution, is only concerned with the denial of macroevolution, evolution that takes place above the species level.

.

 

[nPeace]

Here's a bit of information:
Handfish - Wikipedia
Spotted handfish photo - Brachionichthys hirsutus - G118462

And a video: handfish - Yahoo Video Search Results

I had looked at this fish before.
Is this a "living fossil"?
What does it tell us about evolution, and Tiktaalik for example?