I've Sacrificed my belief in Evolution for Religion

[Shushersbedamned]

Then you are not thinking straight about this. "You failed" is equivalent to saying "you are wrong". If you construe "you are wrong" as a personal attack , all debate is obviously impossible.

It is in fact you who is introducing allegations of personal motive, rather than addressing the point on its merits.

Points of the merits were never part of this inane thread. And saying you are wrong and you failed are different words with two very different meanings.

 

[1robin]

@Thermos aquaticus , @Subduction Zone , @Jose Fly , @metis , and @exchemist

Once again I find myself unable to keep up with those wanting to have a discussion with me in this thread. I am having to spend all my free time typing at a feverish pace just in trying to keep up. I prefer to debate few claims in more depth than I currently can based on the sheer volume of responses I get everyday in just this thread alone. I have yet again been forced to limit my the number of discussions I participate in this subject area. The following is how this is going to break down.

@Thermos aquaticus - Your posts are the most civil and potent I have seen in this thread so our discussion will go forward unimpeded.

@Subduction Zone - There isn't anything unique in you responses in this thread. As I have already said our discussion in this thread has ended.

@Jose Fly - Your a reasonable debater but there is nothing unique in your posts either. So after I respond to your posts from yester our discussion will be concluded.

@metis - Your responses are challenging but since we are having a debate in another thread our debate will come to a close after I respond to your posts from yesterday.

@exchemist - Your new to me so I will continue our discussion.

 

[1robin]

That should have been very easy since a couple of others were chiming in and saying pretty much the same to you.

Ok.

 

[1robin]

We've posted and given you links for both "macro-evolution" and "speciation", but then all you do is to come back with the above?

Maybe use common sense even if you wish to totally ignore what we post, namely that it appears all material objects change over time and genes are material objects. And secondly, if "micro-evolution" supposedly miraculously stops prior to "macro-evolution", please provide scientific evidence that this wall exists? PLEASE do not deflect and avoid the question by going off on a different tangent.

Either you have such evidence or you don't so, if you do, I do believe we'd all appreciate seeing it. If not, then maybe at least admit you don't have it.

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?

 

[1robin]

Wrong again. There is no need for you to respond to every post, especially posts that are not connected with your questions. If you did not waste so much time you could learn more.

See post #542

 

[1robin]

Your response was formatted incorrectly. See post #542

 

[1robin]

It is rather difficult to hit a moving goal.

I didn't move any goal posts I clarified them. I am defending the bible so it only matters what it says. See post#542. Once again I am trying to limit the number of discussions I am having so I can spend more time with your claims. Soon I will be caught up and will have time to get more in depth.

 

[1robin]

Will you PLEASE answer my question in #470! The rest has already been covered with links provided.

see post #542.

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. Your the one who is making claims to knowledge and yours is the positive claim so it is your burden to provide proof.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I didn't move any goal posts I clarified them.

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.

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.

 

[1robin]

That would require you to define what you mean by evidence. We have plenty of evidence for species sharing a common ancestor, but it doesn't seem that you will accept that evidence.

What you have provided is an ounce of data which leads to a ton of speculation. Let me give you examples of what you need to provide.

Show that cows and whales have a common ancestor.
A much easier thing that you could show is that humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor.
Or that modern birds evolved from dinosaurs.

I know you can't do this because it is impossible for anyone to show. I know that showing proof that common descent is true is more than any human can do but that is exactly what you must show to counter my own position.

 

[1robin]

Sure I have, after satisfying your demand early on I switched to offer to help you to learn. You never took me up on the offer.



Links help, but not if you do not understand the basics. The dozens of links tend to support your early demand of proof of macroevolution.



You are only wasting your own time. I quit wasting my time with trying to offer you proof once you demonstrated that you do not understand evidence.

You are a bit like an uneducated kid demanding to understand calculus before he understands algebra or even simple multiplication and division.

See post #542

 

[1robin]

Science is evidence based. Do you understand that there is evidence that whales and cows share a common ancestor? Perhaps if we start with you understanding that evolution is supported by scientific evidence and creationism is not we may get somewhere.

See post #542.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Show that cows and whales have a common ancestor.

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

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

A much easier thing that you could show is that humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor.

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

ERVs: Evidence for the Origin of Humans

 

[exchemist]

What you have provided is an ounce of data which leads to a ton of speculation. Let me give you examples of what you need to provide.

Show that cows and whales have a common ancestor.
A much easier thing that you could show is that humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor.
Or that modern birds evolved from dinosaurs.

I know you can't do this because it is impossible for anyone to show. I know that showing proof that common descent is true is more than any human can do but that is exactly what you must show to counter my own position.

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

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

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?

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.

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.

 

[Jose Fly]

@Jose FlyYour a reasonable debater but there is nothing unique in your posts either. So after I respond to your posts from yesterday

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.

 

[1robin]

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

Ok let's instead make the bar the best inference to a conclusion.

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?

If instead of proof you use probability then subjective faith gets entered into the question the it is a primarily a case of opinion. BTW you can't even prove mathematics either. All claim to external truths and based in probability not certainty. Also keep in mind that I hold both the faith and the negative position so it is not burden to demonstrate anything. Your position is positive and so you have the burden to show that change between kinds does occur.

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.

No bones what so ever are proof of evolution. You find a human skull you can't determine if that creature had any kinds that lived much less that it evolved into anything different from it's self. The primary argument that one type of being evolved into another is simply that they have similarities but just because 2 cars both have lug nuts does not prove that an accord descended for a Deisenberg. Let me ask you something. How can you explain the intelligence gap between humans and all other forms of biological life.

 

[1robin]

We all do....it's right there for everyone to see.


And as I showed (via link, personal explanation, and copy-n-paste), the evolution of new breeding populations is an observed and documented fact.


You have me confused with someone else.


No complaints. You've been given exactly what you challenged us to provide, and in the exact manner you requested. What you do with that information is up to you.

Sorry, please see post #542

 

[1robin]

Thanks for mentioning kinds. I don't know who said it, it could have been me, but @1robin has still not defined "kinds". He merely gave some examples without a definition. To have a working definition of "kinds' one would be able to tell whether two groups of animals are the same "kind" or not.

Usually the definition amounts to the same as "species" and as your articles have shown we have directly observed evolution on that level.

See post #542

 

[Subduction Zone]

See post #542

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.

 

[exchemist]

Ok let's instead make the bar the best inference to a conclusion.

If instead of proof you use probability then subjective faith gets entered into the question the it is a primarily a case of opinion. BTW you can't even prove mathematics either. All claim to external truths and based in probability not certainty. Also keep in mind that I hold both the faith and the negative position so it is not burden to demonstrate anything. Your position is positive and so you have the burden to show that change between kinds does occur.

No bones what so ever are proof of evolution. You find a human skull you can't determine if that creature had any kinds that lived much less that it evolved into anything different from it's self. The primary argument that one type of being evolved into another is simply that they have similarities but just because 2 cars both have lug nuts does not prove that an accord descended for a Deisenberg. Let me ask you something. How can you explain the intelligence gap between humans and all other forms of biological life.

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.

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.

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.

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.