The ToE and common ancestry of all life forms did not come from looking at the evidence

[Dirty Penguin]

Exactly. That's the most frustrating aspect- just accept that science can't be reconciled with a literal interpretation of the Bible and move on. It's this bizarre cognitive dissonance that allows them to accept chemistry when it comes to, say, healthcare, physics when it deals with their fuel combustion engine or computer or whatever, but any aspect of science that touches upon evolution is simply unacceptable.

Some one (some creationist/literalist) in another thread said it similar to the way you put it....."The bible can't be reconciled with the natural world"

To that I ask....(Then what use of the bible is there in the natural world?)......except being used to prop up my chair......:beach:

 

[Man of Faith]

MoF. As I recall, unlike RND, you assert that new species do arise, frequently and rapidly. Does my description basically match how you think they arise?

It depends on what you want to call a species. There are about 30 thousand different types of butterflies. Do you call each one a species? I don't believe that different kinds of animals arise. I would classify all 30 thousand types of butterflies as the same kind of animal even though the different types came about by evolution and natural selection.

 

[Man of Faith]

I assume that RND and MoF are getting their ideas from the same source: The Bible. Yet they believe opposite things about this extremely basic question: Do new species arise, or not. So The Bible, as a source of knowledge about the natural world, must inherently be useless or worse. Relying on it entirely, we have no idea what's going on. At a minimum, we can believe opposite things about basic questions that its readers believe it addresses.

I view the world from a perspective that the Bible is true. However I get my knowledge and understanding of evolution from creation scientists who are of like mind as myself. The Bible doesn't mention evolution or outline its definition.

 

[Man of Faith]

Some one (some creationist/literalist) in another thread said it similar to the way you put it....."The bible can't be reconciled with the natural world"

To that I ask....(Then what use of the bible is there in the natural world?)......except being used to prop up my chair......:beach:

I would modify that statement somewhat and say the Bible cannot be reconciled with a naturalist worldview because miracles are not allowed in that worldview.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I would modify that statement somewhat and say the Bible cannot be reconciled with a naturalist worldview because miracles are not allowed in that worldview.

Have you ever witnessed a verifiable miracle yourself?

 

[Autodidact]

It depends on what you want to call a species. There are about 30 thousand different types of butterflies. Do you call each one a species? I don't believe that different kinds of animals arise. I would classify all 30 thousand types of butterflies as the same kind of animal even though the different types came about by evolution and natural selection.

It has nothing to do with what I want. The word "species" has a scientific definition. So, using that definition, your opinion is that new species arise in the manner described by ToE, and RND's opinion is that they don't. Interestingly, you're both getting your opinions from the Bible.

Do you need me to explain the Biological concept of species?

 

[Man of Faith]

Have you ever witnessed a verifiable miracle yourself?

Yes, many times and I expect to continue witnessing them as long as I am alive.

 

[Autodidact]

I view the world from a perspective that the Bible is true.

Yes, I know. You assume your conclusion, always a sure path to error.

However I get my knowledge and understanding of evolution from creation scientists who are of like mind as myself. The Bible doesn't mention evolution or outline its definition.

There is no such thing. If you assume your conclusion, you're not doing science, but something else. So you get your information from people who share with you an agreement to assume the same conclusion. Not surprisingly, they agree with you.

Meanwhile, you reject the scientific method. And you don't have the integrity to just come out and say so. Why is that?

 

[Man of Faith]

Yes, I know. You assume your conclusion, always a sure path to error. There is no such thing. If you assume your conclusion, you're not doing science, but something else. So you get your information from people who share with you an agreement to assume the same conclusion. Not surprisingly, they agree with you.

Meanwhile, you reject the scientific method. And you don't have the integrity to just come out and say so. Why is that?

I don't reject the scientific method, just the common descent worldview. Everyone starts with a worldview and then they look to see how the evidence fits their worldview. Creationists say that God did it and evolutionists say that time did it. Either you believe in God or Time.

 

[freethinker44]

It depends on what you want to call a species. There are about 30 thousand different types of butterflies. Do you call each one a species? I don't believe that different kinds of animals arise. I would classify all 30 thousand types of butterflies as the same kind of animal even though the different types came about by evolution and natural selection.

So you accept the process of evolution but disagree with it as a whole? This makes no sense, if you accept that evolution can produce different kinds of the same animal than accepting that it can produce different species is just a small step away. It is the small changes added together that produce major changes over time. If you take a butterfly and make a thousand changes to its dna, then each successive species will be almost identical to the last and in every practical sense it will be the same species. But when you compare the last species to the first species, they are completely different species. This is what evolution is, accepting small changes means accepting major changes. The two are not inseperable.

 

[freethinker44]

I don't reject the scientific method, just the common descent worldview. Everyone starts with a worldview and then they look to see how the evidence fits their worldview. Creationists say that God did it and evolutionists say that time did it. Either you believe in God or Time.

Well, I definitely know time exists, so.....

 

[te_lanus]

<snip> I would classify all 30 thousand types of butterflies as the same kind of animal even though the different types came about by evolution and natural selection.

Hi. is this not a oxymoron?

BTW me like this:

 

[Autodidact]

I don't reject the scientific method,

Yes, you do. The scientific method means that you don't start with your conclusion. You start with the evidence and see what conclusion it leads to.

just the common descent worldview.

There is no such thing. The only difference between the worldview of someone who accepts science, including ToE, and you, is that we rely on the scientific method all the time, and you rely on it all the time until it conflicts with your previously formed conviction.

Everyone starts with a worldview and then they look to see how the evidence fits their worldview.

No. Only creationists are dishonest cheaters who start with their conclusion and then cherry pick a few facts to prop it up.

That's not what happened. No one ever started with a common descent worldview. You've been lied to by those same creationists. What happened was, a bunch of devout Christians who knew the Bible was true went out looking for the evidence they knew would support it. They were completely surprised to find that it didn't. But they were honest enough to admit it. And so, in the 19th century, geologists realized that the earth is much older than the Bible says. By the 20th century, they figured out how new species come into existence. That's what happened.

Creationists say that God did it and evolutionists say that time did it. Either you believe in God or Time.

No, you're completely confused. You seem to think that evolution is some kind of religion or worldview, even though the first thing I explained is that it is none of those things. It's a specific theory in a specific field of science. It says absolutely nothing about whether God created all things, and is entirely consistent with the position that He did. In fact, we can all agree to assume that God created all things and still explain ToE, so let's do that.

Science does not tell you whether God created all things, only, if He did, how He did so. Do you understand that? (Can I have $1.00 for every time I've explained this please? Thanks; I'll retire now.)

Please stop trying to compare God and evolution. Science has nothing to do with whether God created anything. O.K.? Great.

There is no such thing as an evolutionist. The word you're looking for is "Biologist." And no, Biologists don't say that time did anything. They say that we get new species by descent with modification and natural selection--which you agree with.

In brief, if you're going to stop lying, you have to stop quoting from YEC websites, because they're nothing but lies from one end to the other. I can prove it to you. Pick one, any one, and I'll find a wild inaccuracy on the first substantive page.

 

[te_lanus]

Hi Man of Faith.

Methinks this is a very good statement on what is wrong with creationist:

Creationists refuse to subject their "theories" to peer reviews, because they know they don't fit the facts. The creationist mindset is distorted by the concept of "good science" (creationism) vs. "bad science" (anything not in agreement with creationism). Creation "scientists" are biblical fundamentalists who can not accept anything contrary to their sectarian religioius beliefs.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

Well, without faith......

Wether i have one or not was not part of the discussion.

Frankly, I have absolutely no idea how God decided to create something, let alone animals, trees, or planets. I just know He opened His mouth and made things.

Well, "with" fauth it seems you don't get really far.
You have no clue. You believe something of which you can't even tell us any details. Sorry but evolution explains things way better than "i have absoloutely no idea how.... i just know he opened his mouth".

You see... one should stick to the best explanation at a time.

Kinda like the evolutionist that believes a scoop of dirt can be placed in a shoe box and a Ferrai 500 will pop out after several million years of shaking.

I wouldnt know even ONE person that takes evolution as the most correct theory who would make such a silly claim.

Do tell. How is there anything related to truth in the "theory" of Evolution? I mean, it's still a theory right?

You should perhaps inform yourself a bit better about the term "theory" in science before discussing such issues here.
Frankly i am a bit tired of people that run around with no clue and think they can teach all others a lesson about the things they do not know anything about

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

I don't reject the scientific method, just the common descent worldview.

Common descent is at the moment the result of the scientific method.

Everyone starts with a worldview and then they look to see how the evidence fits their worldview.

This is exactly the error you make.

It is said that a true seeker of truth seeks the truth no matter how it looks like.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

. . . Everyone starts with a worldview and then they look to see how the evidence fits their worldview. Creationists say that God did it and evolutionists say that time did it. Either you believe in God or Time.

Wrong!

A world view is formed AFTER the evidence is examined. You guys start out with your conclusion already reached and hunt around for evidence to confirm it.:sad4:

The intelligent man seeks evidence on which to base a world view. Which view is open to change at any moment.

 

[Autodidact]

O.K. RND seems to have left the room, but MoF is still with us, blessed be.
O.K., MoF, so you understand and agree with what ToE says about how new species emerge.

It sounds like it might be a good idea to stop off and explain what a species is and isn't, or do you understand that now? Let me know, as it's important to the next step.

Now casting your mind back to the lizards, we showed a new species of lizard comes into existence. Now repeat that process again, and again, and again. After a long time, on one island you have a lizard that's only 2.5# long, beige, eats ants, lays eggs under a rock, lives around 6 months. On another island you're got a lizard that's a foot long, bright green with pale yellow stripes, that eats snails and worms, bears a clutch of around a dozen live young, and lives up to 5 years. At that point the herpetologist says, "Hold on just a minute here. These are really too different to classify as different species. We really think this looks like a whole different genus. So we'll take these larger lizards that bear live young and call them genus Autodidacta." Voila, by the same process, you get new genii.

Still with me?

 

[Man of Faith]

O.K. RND seems to have left the room, but MoF is still with us, blessed be.
O.K., MoF, so you understand and agree with what ToE says about how new species emerge.

It sounds like it might be a good idea to stop off and explain what a species is and isn't, or do you understand that now? Let me know, as it's important to the next step.

Now casting your mind back to the lizards, we showed a new species of lizard comes into existence. Now repeat that process again, and again, and again. After a long time, on one island you have a lizard that's only 2.5# long, beige, eats ants, lays eggs under a rock, lives around 6 months. On another island you're got a lizard that's a foot long, bright green with pale yellow stripes, that eats snails and worms, bears a clutch of around a dozen live young, and lives up to 5 years. At that point the herpetologist says, "Hold on just a minute here. These are really too different to classify as different species. We really think this looks like a whole different genus. So we'll take these larger lizards that bear live young and call them genus Autodidacta." Voila, by the same process, you get new genii.

Still with me?

I'm with you but so far you are just describing words, species, genii, they are still the same kind of animal, lizards.

 

[MSizer]

I'm with you but so far you are just describing words, species, genii, they are still the same kind of animal, lizards.

If that argument were worth anything, it would be the worst thing you could say to support your opinion, because chimps, bonobos and humans are all just kinds of apes then. Fortunately for you in this case, it's a fallacious argument.