The battle of evolution vs creationism

[Man of Faith]

Yes it does. There's a lot of examples of it. Read Prothero's book about the fossil record for instance. I'm not going to list them for you. It's your job to study.


Only some do, like shark, because they've topped out in an ecological niche, which you would know and understand if you truly had studied this.


Uh... no. Punctuated equilibrium is only one piece of the puzzle. There are a lot of puneq events in the fossil record, but they don't support creationism. They still support evolution. Because of individuals of species group together in fringes in a separated ecological niche which is one of the key factors for speciation. Which you also would know if you actually had studied this. Puneq is not related to the "web" the way your seem to thing. The web you talk about has to do with gene flow and admixture.


Please, pick up a book and read.


No, they found out that it wasn't true. That was the beginning of geology and eventually gave birth to the theory of evolution. It was the search for creationism that disappointed the Christians. Even Christian geologists know that the fossil in the strata where they can find oil indicate age based on evolution. You really, really need to read something... unless you're just trolling... I can't tell anymore if people are just being stupid on purpose or not.

---

And you didn't answer my question. How does creationism support change?

I've done the research and one more book isn't going to change the fact that no fossil can be shown to have any relationship to any other fossil. That is a fact supported by science, and evolutionists, but it is buried deep into their websites where you have to dig for it. It isn't promoted and touted in the books that appear to support fossil relationships out of thin air like there is some way to show relationships. It isn't possible and never was. Evolution is first assumed to be true when fossils are lined up in a row or tree. Now that the evolution tree is dead, that is even more evident to see. If the fossil record supported an evolutionary tree, we wouldnt be having the web concept being promoted now.

 

[Man of Faith]

Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, ants produce ants. Never an exception to the rule.

It happened in the darnkess of the past where we can't see it. Just have faith in science.

 

[Windwalker]

Now that the evolution tree is dead, that is even more evident to see. If the fossil record supported an evolutionary tree, we wouldnt be having the web concept being promoted now.

Please explain your understanding of the web of life theory.

 

[Man of Faith]

except it is confrimed by fossile age and location, the morphological changes, and the genetic evidence.

The genetic code is evidence of intelligence, not randomness. There is no code on earth, defined as a system of communication where messages are transmitted and translated, like the genetic code is, that doesn't come from intelligence. Speaking of books, how about Stephen Meyer's "Signature in a Cell" "In the cell, information is carried by DNA, which functions like a software program." "The cell does what any advanced computer operating system can do but with almost inconceivably greater suppleness and efficiency." What we have in cells is information being transmitted, interpreted, re-coded and responded to, just like all other codes that are created by intelligence, such as the Morse code, or computer codes, radio codes, etc...

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

The genetic code is evidence of intelligence, not randomness. There is no code on earth, defined as a system of communication where messages are transmitted and translated, like the genetic code is, that doesn't come from intelligence. Speaking of books, how about Stephen Meyer's "Signature in a Cell" "In the cell, information is carried by DNA, which functions like a software program." "The cell does what any advanced computer operating system can do but with almost inconceivably greater suppleness and efficiency." What we have in cells is information being transmitted, interpreted, re-coded and responded to, just like all other codes that are created by intelligence, such as the Morse code, or computer codes, radio codes, etc...

It's actually not the efficient (lots of energy wasting done by cells)...it does the best with what it has though. Also the genetic code is also redundant...so it's not randomness.

 

[averageJOE]

Actually a tiger can give birth to a liger. And a lion to a Tyon.

Careful, because his smoking gun response will sound like "But a liger and a tyon are still CATS. So it's still cats producing cats!!!!!"

 

[fantome profane]

Speaking of books, how about Stephen Meyer's "Signature in a Cell" "

Have you read it? Do you recommend it?

 

[Ouroboros]

The genetic code is evidence of intelligence, not randomness. There is no code on earth, defined as a system of communication where messages are transmitted and translated, like the genetic code is, that doesn't come from intelligence. Speaking of books, how about Stephen Meyer's "Signature in a Cell" "In the cell, information is carried by DNA, which functions like a software program." "The cell does what any advanced computer operating system can do but with almost inconceivably greater suppleness and efficiency." What we have in cells is information being transmitted, interpreted, re-coded and responded to, just like all other codes that are created by intelligence, such as the Morse code, or computer codes, radio codes, etc...

Except that this code does change by chance. It's documented. We know it does. And it's known how and why it does, and even how often statistically it does. The chance of nature is reprogramming this code under our nose and it has been observed many times over. The signature is constantly changing...

 

[Ouroboros]

Have you read it? Do you recommend it?

Meyers has a PhD in history and taught philosophy. I'm sure he's great at what he does. He also have a master in earth science or something. But molecular biologists have criticized his book for being factually incorrect. I don't know.

The thing here though is that evolution is true. Now, it is possible that a divine force is pushing and modifying the DNA code in one or the other direction. We wouldn't really know. So, sure, let's say there is a divine force behind evolution. But... it's just another parameter to evolution, not a "devastating blow" to it. We know from the fossil record, molecular biology, and from study of distribution of phenotypes, and much more that evolution is happening as we speak, and happened millions of times over in the past (billions, trillions, whatever). It's just real based on the factual base. If God exists and created this world, he used evolution. So a book that finds out that God used evolution to create life wouldn't undo the fact that evolution is happening.

 

[Ouroboros]

I've done the research and one more book isn't going to change the fact that no fossil can be shown to have any relationship to any other fossil.

Read Prothero's book. He has plenty of examples.

That is a fact supported by science, and evolutionists,

No, it's not.

but it is buried deep into their websites where you have to dig for it.

How come there are examples given of the very same thing you're claiming they say they don't have? This is dumb.

It isn't promoted and touted in the books that appear to support fossil relationships out of thin air like there is some way to show relationships. It isn't possible and never was. Evolution is first assumed to be true when fossils are lined up in a row or tree. Now that the evolution tree is dead, that is even more evident to see. If the fossil record supported an evolutionary tree, we wouldnt be having the web concept being promoted now.

OMG. I'm done. You're on my ignore from now on.

 

[Ouroboros]

Btw, some of Prothero's critique of Meyer's book: Don Prothero guts Stephen Meyer’s new creationist book « Why Evolution Is True

Meyer isn't an expert in this field, so it's good to read an experts view.

 

[Man of Faith]

I just want to frubal you for this post, and I want to do it publically. Because although you have not changed your position on this subject, I can see that over time you have come to a deeper understanding of the concept of science. You may not like the fact that science is dependent on methodological naturalism to operate, but you do understand that it is a fact. So I congratulate you on your understanding. Honestly and sincerely. Well done!

I appreciate that and will accept it in the generous and sincere spirit in which it is given. I mean it is Christmas after all, or it is the "Holidays".

I have had to take that position because on one hand I am told that I can believe that God guided evolution, but on the other hand I am told that God isn't necessary to explain how we got here, which shows the naturalistic nature of evolution. So either science is all in with naturalism, or it isn't. I have come to the conclusion that it is, which gives me the moral authority to push back on the idea that God guided evolution.

 

[Windwalker]

I have had to take that position because on one hand I am told that I can believe that God guided evolution, but on the other hand I am told that God isn't necessary to explain how we got here, which shows the naturalistic nature of evolution. So either science is all in with naturalism, or it isn't. I have come to the conclusion that it is, which gives me the moral authority to push back on the idea that God guided evolution.

If you believe God guided evolution, then why do you deny evolution?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

If you believe God guided evolution, then why do you deny evolution?

I think he's saying he doesn't believe that.

 

[johnhanks]

Now that the evolution tree is dead...

Seriously wishful thinking on your part.

If the fossil record supported an evolutionary tree, we wouldnt be having the web concept being promoted now.

Could you outline to us your understanding of this "web concept", and explain how it completely replaces the concept of a phylogenetic tree?

 

[Man of Faith]

Careful, because his smoking gun response will sound like "But a liger and a tyon are still CATS. So it's still cats producing cats!!!!!"

The biological classification of family is documented science. So mocking when creationists use it is confusing. Natualists say family, creationists say kind. There is no documented case of observable morphological changes from one family to another.

 

[Ouroboros]

If you believe God guided evolution, then why do you deny evolution?

That's what confuses me too.

Behe and many other ID proponents are in essence supporters of evolution. It's just that they believe God has a hand in the evolutionary process. In other words, it's not special creation, but maybe should be called process creation. It's a work in progress. Most of the mutations being random but few of them, here and there, are guided by a supernatural force.

The problem is that they're going about it in the wrong way. To show that God is guiding evolution you have to find evidence that supports that, not trying to undermine the evolutionary process as such (that we know for certainty is true). It's like trying to prove calculus by showing that algebra or trig is wrong. A God-guided evolution would be an extension of existing evolution, not contrary. All these anti-evolution books will not help their cause. It creates tension, confusion, and doesn't even provide a framework to work from for testing, experiments, or any other means to confirm it. So far, the closest they've got was irreducible complexity. It's a valid idea, but so far, it has not been confirmed. Each and every IC has been shown to have precursors. They should put the money in research for it rather than propaganda.

 

[johnhanks]

Natualists say family, creationists say kind.

Golly, have we finally pinned a creationist down into telling us what "kind" means? "Kind" = Family? So you're happy to call humans "ape kind"?

 

[Revoltingest]

It happened in the darnkess of the past where we can't see it. Just have faith in science.

If there were a god, science would offer a glimpse into his/her/its work. If I believed, I'd see that evolution exists, & that it's guided. But the "how" of guiding is by creating initial conditions rather than continual intervention. Matter, energy, & space-time would've been created to have the fundamental properties which create the emergent properties of abiogenesis & evolution. What I've just illustrated is why evolution cannot disprove existence of a god. It only messes with some religious interpretations.

 

[Man of Faith]

Creationism (or some types of it) posit that the Universe is only in the neighborhood of 6,000 years old. If that is the case, then how did light from galaxies billions of light-years away get to us in only 6,000 years? By the way, don't say "the speed of light was faster back then", because I've already got a good counter to that one cooked up.

It is possible that your focus on the negatives of creation causes you to miss the negatives of naturalism. Each side has a light problem. Naturalists have the horizon problem where there is not enough time in the current model for the universe to have the equal temperature that it does. Both sides take faith, I just happen to put my faith in the creation scientists side that they will work out the star light issue. There are already 4 or 5 possibilities out there.