I've Sacrificed my belief in Evolution for Religion

[Subduction Zone]

Please see post #542

Let me go back to the beginning. What I am defending is the following:

New International Version
God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

What do you claim was provided that contradicts the above?

I caught up. You have not defined "kind" yet.

If you properly defined "kind" you could devise a test that would tell us if two different populations are the same "kind" or not. If there is a limit to evolution you should be able to show it with a proper definition of "kind". Due to evolution there is no hard definition of "species". One of the best definitions is Mayr's breeding based definition of species which says that if two groups can produce fertile offspring they are the same species. This goes a bit into it and the "species problem" that still exists with his definition:

Ernst Mayr and the modern concept of species

When two groups are separated they will evolve along divergent paths. If they are separated long enough they will no longer be able to interbreed and will be two separate species.

But it is not cut and dried. For example there is the horse and mule. They can interbreed but their offspring are almost always sterile both male and female. A few fertile female mules have existed in hundreds of years of breeding. Clearly they are different species. Tigers and Lions can interbreed, but their offspring have greatly reduced fertility and it appears to get worse with following generations. Again less clearly but still separate species. Cattle and bison can interbreed but only the female offspring are fertile. Are they a separate species or not at this point? Such a "fuzzy border" is what is expected if evolution is correct. Creationists can't explain it nor have they yet to come up with a working definition of "kind".

 

[1robin]

I am having difficulty in applying it to biology in any meaningful way.

Well I offered to investigate those scriptures by proper exegesis but you showed little interest so I left it there. This is actually the point we need to gain clarity concerning before we start trying to see if it true. We need to establish what those verses mean first. Do you wish to investigate them?

Whales and cows are the same type of animal. They are both mammals. See the problem?

This is irrelevant.

1. We are not discussing what is true of modern biological etymology.
2. We are trying to establish if the bible is incorrect.

So it is only the biblical language that is relevant not taxonomy. IOW it only matters if evolution between "biblical" kinds occurs, not between arbitrary biological terms. Do you understand this?

What the bible means by "kind". I would suggest that bible considers cows and whales as different kinds of creatures. The bible doesn't use the term mammals at all.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Well I offered to investigate those scriptures by proper exegesis but you showed little interest so I left it there. This is actually the point we need to gain clarity concerning before we start trying to see if it true. We need to establish what those verses mean first. Do you wish to investigate them?

It is your claim, so I think it should be up to you to investigate them. I can certainly help with the biology side of things.

This is irrelevant.

1. We are not discussing what is true of modern biological etymology.
2. We are trying to establish if the bible is incorrect.

So it is only the biblical language that is relevant not taxonomy. IOW it only matters if evolution between "biblical" kinds occurs, not between arbitrary biological terms. Do you understand this?

The biology terms are not arbitrary. The biological groups are based on shared derived features. The biblical terms do appear to be completely arbitrary as is shown by your inability to describe any type of criteria for determine if two species belong to the same kind.

What the bible means by "kind". I would suggest that bible considers cows and whales as different kinds of creatures. The bible doesn't use the term mammals at all.

Why do you suggest that? What non-arbitrary criteria are you using? As my old math teacher used to tell me, you need to show your math.

 

[metis]

What do you claim was provided that contradicts the above?

I will deal with that when you finally deal with my posts #470 and #480, which were repeated from an even earlier post from me asking the same.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do not think that @1robin can deal with any of the resources made available to him since he does not understand the basics of either science or evidence. That is why I quit offering evidence of my own and offered to go over the basics with him a long time ago. In case he does pay attention understanding the basics of science does not limit one to only debates on evolution. One can use those skills in all sorts of debates.

 

[metis]

As to your question in post #470. I hold the faith position so I do not have the burden of proof. You do. Besides you can't prove a negative.

I knew you'd cop-out on this because this is what we always get on that question.

It is YOU who made the assertion that micro stops before macro, so it is YOU who has to provide such evidence for that, 1robin. But I know you can't, and I think you're well aware of that, thus your bait & switch.

Can you admit you can't or are you just going to continue to play your little games?

 

[metis]

I hold the faith position...

There is no such thing as "the faith position" as some different Christian's and Christian denominations don't share your interpretation.

The very first exposure that I had that the creation accounts didn't necessary have to be taken literally was from a Catholic priest I happened to talk with at a bowling alley back in the early 1960's. His answer, however, confused me since I was attending a fundamentalist Protestant church that opposed the concept of evolution, which I eventually left about 6 years later largely due to taking classes in biology and theology during my undergrad years.

 

[1robin]

There are still no set criteria for determining if two species belong to the same kind or not. That needs to be clarified before we can move forward. For example, whales and cows are the same kind of animal. They are both mammals.

That is exactly what I have tried to get you to do for weeks. If your going to press me to provide the exact definition of the biblical word "kind" we (as both I and you have said) need to back up and determine exactly what those biblical verses mean. I already tried to back up and start from the verses in question but I did not get the impression you were all that interested. So as I posted before lets start with the specific verse in question.

New International Version
God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

Now that you know the verse in question the next step is to determine what it means. Would you like to do so?

You should also be thinking of what type of fossil or genetic evidence would be inconsistent with separately created species or kinds. You need to firmly plant those goalposts on some real predictions of what we should see and not see if species were separately created.

I think your shifting burdens here.

1. I hold the position of faith. Faith is completely justified as long as a defeater isn't shown to exist.
2. You hold the scientific position. You must provide a defeater to counter my position.

What that defeater is, is up to you. However we shouldn't move on to possible defeaters we must first determine what the relevant biblical verse's actually mean. As I asked above do you want to first determine what the verses in question mean?

 

[1robin]

Cows and whales are part of a larger nested hierarchy. The nested hierarchy is a pattern of similarities that form groups within groups. This is the pattern of similarity that common ancestry and evolution produce, and we have directly observed evolutionary mechanisms producing phylogenies in living populations, such as the lab mouse:

mtDNA phylogeny and evolution of laboratory mouse strains

The mere fact (possible fact) that things look similar is not proof evolution occurred. Again, the fact that they both have tires, that would not mean that a Studebaker evolved into a Ferrari. Similarity between types of creatures would also suggest a common designer.

When we see a pattern of similarity that evolution would produce it isn't speculation to say that evolution probably produced it.

See the above.

That's what I did over in the ERV thread:

ERVs: Evidence for the Origin of Humans

You gave me two links here, at least 2 links before this point, and others have given me a dozen links just in this thread alone over the past few days. I can't follow every link I have been given and read everything the links contained. So for the 20th time can you copy and paste the most concise and compelling information from your links? If you do and I find what you copy and pasted challenging then and only then will I invest the required time to study a link sufficiently.

 

[1robin]

I refer you to my post 493, in which I said:

Proof is the wrong word. Proof is for law and mathematics, not science.

Ok, if you can't (and you can't) provide proof that the bible is wrong about evolution then that would mean we are only dealing with probabilities. Probability is a subjective quality in this context. The trickle of data is IMO is not enough to justify a metric ton of theory. I hold that faith position and faith is completely justied unless you post a defeater for my faith.

What there is is evidence that common descent is true. DNA shows the closest living animal to the whale genetically is the hippopotamus. Cool, huh?

Again we get an ounce of data. You simply think that ounce is enough to justify the theory but I do not. Without "proof" we are stuck at an impasse.

And, as evolution predicted, intermediate fossils have now been found showing how whales developed from terrestrial mammals. You can look up Indohyus and Pakicetus if you want more on this. You will read there is evidence these were artiodactyls, the same broad family of mammals that included pigs and cattle - and hippos, of course.

I simply disagree. I do not think there is sufficient evidence to believe cows and whales have a known ancestor in common. Sorry but you have way more faith than I do.

Forget "proof". Evidence is what is relevant. Did you look up Indohyus or Pakicetus? It's quite interesting. And quite a surprise that the Hippo is the closest relative, according to DNA, though of course it make perfect sense once you've been told it.

Instead of proof lets use the best inference to a conclusion. I do not believe common descent is the best inference to a conclusion, however I do believe that the ounce of data we have makes microevolution and a common designer is the best conclusion.

 

[1robin]

As I noted, you've been given exactly what you challenged us to provide and in exactly the manner you requested.

Since that time you've done everything but actually address that information. That tells me your questions were never asked in good faith and you have no intention of ever addressing it.

IOW, you're no different than any other creationist....when provided scientific information, all you'll do is dodge, evade, and eventually bail.

Sorry @Jose Fly I had to bring our discussion to a halt in this thread at least. Please see post #542

 

[1robin]

If you instead answered questions and tried to learn instead of wasting time defending your inability to do so you might not have to "type feverishly".
Right now you do not even know enough to ask proper questions or how to even define your terms. You have yet to define what a "kind" is. Maybe you did some time today, but since no creationist has been able to do so yet I doubt if you have either.

See post #542

 

[1robin]

I caught up. You have not defined "kind" yet.

If you properly defined "kind" you could devise a test that would tell us if two different populations are the same "kind" or not. If there is a limit to evolution you should be able to show it with a proper definition of "kind". Due to evolution there is no hard definition of "species". One of the best definitions is Mayr's breeding based definition of species which says that if two groups can produce fertile offspring they are the same species. This goes a bit into it and the "species problem" that still exists with his definition:

Ernst Mayr and the modern concept of species

When two groups are separated they will evolve along divergent paths. If they are separated long enough they will no longer be able to interbreed and will be two separate species.

But it is not cut and dried. For example there is the horse and mule. They can interbreed but their offspring are almost always sterile both male and female. A few fertile female mules have existed in hundreds of years of breeding. Clearly they are different species. Tigers and Lions can interbreed, but their offspring have greatly reduced fertility and it appears to get worse with following generations. Again less clearly but still separate species. Cattle and bison can interbreed but only the female offspring are fertile. Are they a separate species or not at this point? Such a "fuzzy border" is what is expected if evolution is correct. Creationists can't explain it nor have they yet to come up with a working definition of "kind".

See post #542

 

[1robin]

I do not think that @1robin can deal with any of the resources made available to him since he does not understand the basics of either science or evidence. That is why I quit offering evidence of my own and offered to go over the basics with him a long time ago. In case he does pay attention understanding the basics of science does not limit one to only debates on evolution. One can use those skills in all sorts of debates.

Another argument by proxy. See post #542

 

[Subduction Zone]

Another argument by proxy. See post #542

You really do not understand the terms that you are using. I have offered to help you to learn why we know that you are wrong. A good starting point for you is to learn what the scientific method is and how it is used. Along with that is the concept of evidence. You clearly do not understand what is and what is not evidence. It would not take you long to learn and could save you a massive amount of time in the future.

 

[1robin]

No let's not make the bar "the best inference to a conclusion." That is utterly unscientific (and boilerplate ID rubbish). In science we are under no pressure to offer a conclusion or an explanation until we have one that can be validated by observation. An example is abiogenesis. We do not have a full hypothesis (only a few speculative bits, to date), but we are not forced to jump to a half-baked conclusion in the meantime. Science is happy to say "we don't know" and to have loose ends.

The term best inference to a conclusion has nothing to do with biology, intelligent design, or Christianity. It simply implies that all that can be done is to look at the evidence and make the best conclusion we can. That would be true no matter what branch of knowledge is under discussion except for self awareness. Why on earth would you have a problem with any of this? Tell you what, I hate to get hung up on semantic technicalities. What terms would you like to use?

And your remarks about departing from the standard of "proof" show you have no understanding of how science works. Basic philosophy of science tells us that you can't prove a theory true, but you can prove it false, or incomplete. The test, always, is observation of nature. If your observation of nature fits the theory, that does not prove it true, as there could be another tomorrow that doesn't fit - you can never logically exclude that possibility. Whereas if you have an observation that doesn't fit, there must be something wrong with the theory. This is why demanding "proof" that a theory is true is a silly thing to do.

Yeah, I have over 190 semester hours in a scientific field, work in a DOD defense lab, and have a degree in mathematics. I believe I know a little about how science works. Give me a break.

My position is the faith position. My faith is perfectly justifiable unless you provide a defeater.
You hold the scientific position and therefor you must provide that scientific defeater.

So all your rhetoric is just wasted breath. Science will patiently work on hypotheses that can be tested by what observations of nature they predict we should be able to find. No other hypotheses will be entertained.

Neither of your premise' above are true therefore your conclusion is invalid.

The challenge for creationism is to make a prediction of what we should find in nature that fits creationism but not evolution. I am unaware of any such prediction from creationism. So it's not science - but then we knew that.

I am not really making a positive claim about creationism, I am merely making a negative claim about the indemonstrable concept of common descent.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[Subduction Zone]

The term best inference to a conclusion has nothing to do with biology, intelligent design, or Christianity. It simply implies that all that can be done is to look at the evidence and make the best conclusion we can. That would be true no matter what branch of knowledge is under discussion except for self awareness. Why on earth would you have a problem with any of this? Tell you what, I hate to get hung up on semantic technicalities. What terms would you like to use?

Yeah, I have over 190 semester hours in a scientific field, work in a DOD defense lab, and have a degree in mathematics. I believe I know a little about how science works. Give me a break.

My position is the faith position. My faith is perfectly justifiable unless you provide a defeater.
You hold the scientific position and therefor you must provide that scientific defeater.

And that has been presented. That you do not understand how your beliefs have been refuted does not mean that has not happened. Once again you need to learn the basics. And what scientific field did you study and at what level? You claim to understand how science works and then you demonstrate that you clearly do not. This is why I keep offering to help you on the basics.

Neither of your premise' above are true therefore your conclusion is invalid.

What premises do you think that he used? How are they invalid?

I am not really making a positive claim about creationism, I am merely making a negative claim about the indemonstrable concept of common descent.

But that has been demonstrated in many different ways. This would be so much faster if we went over the basics first.

 

[1robin]

It is your claim, so I think it should be up to you to investigate them. I can certainly help with the biology side of things.

I have offered to do this several times and I even posted the first step. I wanted you to participate in the effort to interpret the verses in question. Is that what you want to get to the bottom of first?

The biology terms are not arbitrary. The biological groups are based on shared derived features. The biblical terms do appear to be completely arbitrary as is shown by your inability to describe any type of criteria for determine if two species belong to the same kind.

Since it is the biblical terms that in question the terms biologists prefer are irrelevant (arbitrary).

Why do you suggest that? What non-arbitrary criteria are you using? As my old math teacher used to tell me, you need to show your math.

Because the verses in question from the bible seem to suggest that "kinds" refers to things similar in appearance. For example wolves, dogs, and coyotes seem to be of the same type of "kind". However we should first go back and see what the bible verse are specifically. I defend the bible and so what the bible claims is what we should concentrate on first. Do you want to do so?

 

[1robin]

I will deal with that when you finally deal with my posts #470 and #480, which were repeated from an even earlier post from me asking the same.

As much as I want to comply with your requests, to do so would violate what I said in post #542

 

[1robin]

I knew you'd cop-out on this because this is what we always get on that question.

It is YOU who made the assertion that micro stops before macro, so it is YOU who has to provide such evidence for that, 1robin. But I know you can't, and I think you're well aware of that, thus your bait & switch.

Can you admit you can't or are you just going to continue to play your little games?

Of course you could have predicted my ending our discussion, I have been telling you it was coming for more than a week. As much as I want to comply with your requests, to do so would violate what I said in post #542