What is creationism?

[SkepticThinker]

That was the point, his doubts were only potential, hypothetical problems then, they have largely been validated since.

You've got it backwards.

His doubts were not validated, and we've accumulated so much evidence (including transitional forms and genetic confirmation) since he originally wrote his book, that evolution is now considered fact.

 

[Midnight Rain]

That was the point, his doubts were only potential, hypothetical problems then, they have largely been validated since.

Not accurate.
Darwin- "I've got this idea that seems to make some sense. But with my limited knowlege of it I suppose that it would hinge on this and that."
Years later
Modern scientist- "Darwin was on the right track. Now we have a half dozen schools of science that wasn't even invented for at least 60 years after his death that have given us gratuitous amounts of evidence that he couldn't have even dreamed of. Biological evolution as described by modern science has about the same level of certainty as heliocentric theory of planetary motion. "

 

[metis]

No .. it's not that. Evolution is a complicated subject and our knowledge is still evolving
It consists of many theories, and while some are undoubtedly correct, that does not mean that they ALL are!

That depends on how you are using the term "theories", and I believe that has already been explained to you. If not, I can do that. To the above, we have never claimed to know all or even most of "the answers" as science is always a "work in progress".

The most controversial aspect of evolutionary biology is the implication that humans share common ancestry with apes and that the mental and moral faculties of humanity have the same types of natural causes as other inherited traits in animals.

For a long time there were numerous hypotheses about our ancestry, but there's not much doubt left that there's a common ancestry whereas the split likely occurred somewhere around 7 million years ago. Both the genome testing and the human fossil record point in that direction even though we are still hedging our bets. The more recent find in Chad is of a man who has so many shared ape/human characteristics that the researchers cannot classify him in either camp. This is what we had hoped to find, but we still have to wait until some more gaps are filled before making any kind of declaration.

If you left "the church", there's no reason why you can't find another community/denomination that makes more sense to you.

I did, although it's a synagogue, and I am quite active in it. Since Judaism in general is very open to scientific evidence, there is no conflict with accepting evolution as long as it is understood that God was behind it.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You've got it backwards.

His doubts were not validated, and we've accumulated so much evidence (including transitional forms and genetic confirmation) since he originally wrote his book, that evolution is now considered fact.

Obviously most don't consider it fact!

He talked about the difficulties of something as complex as life spontaneously arising from non-life- going by the mere blobs he could see in a cell through a microscope- without the slightest possibility of imagining in his wildest dreams, the immense deeper complexity of what he was looking at

Darwin's theory relied on the observed sudden jumps in the fossil record being entirely artifacts of an incomplete record, he considered sudden significant jumps fatal to the theory. He could not have imagined that the jumps would be ever more apparent and well established and defined 150 years later- to the point that evolutionists themselves broke up into conflicting theories to try to account for it.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Obviously most don't consider it fact!

The scientific community unanimously accepts it. There are fringe parties that is questionable to be called science that have problems with it. Then we have the issue with religious discourse in the laymen public. Both are irrelevant as evolution stands by evidence alone despite popularity of opinions.

He talked about the difficulties of something as complex as life spontaneously arising from non-life- going by the mere blobs he could see in a cell through a microscope- without the slightest possibility of imagining in his wildest dreams, the immense deeper complexity of what he was looking at

True. That was beyond darwin. It isn't too far beyond us now. We have at least accounted for how it could have happened. There is no reason to bring in miracles.

Darwin's theory relied on the observed sudden jumps in the fossil record being entirely artifacts of an incomplete record, he considered sudden significant jumps fatal to the theory. He could not have imagined that the jumps would be ever more apparent and well established and defined 150 years later- to the point that evolutionists themselves broke up into conflicting theories to try to account for it.

There are sub theories that are called "competing theories". They are normal and healthy in the scientific community. On the specifics of how evolution occurred there have been several splits and continues to be today. However this is normal. As new information becomes available we validate some portions to the theory and others are considered obsolete. This is perfectly normal and fine. Its not an argument against evolution in the slightest. Especially since ti didn't matter whose variant of the theory they supported they all knew that evolution itself was fact.

 

[muhammad_isa]

So, if almighty God created us from scratch...

Well now .. how Almighty God created us is just that; 'how He created us'
You might know much better than me just how life evolved on this planet .. I'm not an expert in bilology, but it seems to me 'from scratch' would be an accurate description. Was that billions of years ago? Was it thousands of years ago? Exactly how did He do it?
Many people think that they have all the answers to those questions, but I would say that
Almighty God knows best.

However our lives evolved, doesn't alter the fact that we are not the same as other creatures .. we have much in common yes, but our responsibilty is greater. I mean, what other creatures do you know that need a good bank account in order to be comfortable?

 

[muhammad_isa]

I did, although it's a synagogue, and I am quite active in it. Since Judaism in general is very open to scientific evidence, there is no conflict with accepting evolution as long as it is understood that God was behind it.

I guess that makes us 'distant cousins' in some ways

 

[metis]

I guess that makes us 'distant cousins' in some ways

If we go back far enough, ...

 

[outhouse]

Darwin's theory relied on the observed

Facts.


Not mythology like many theist follow blindly

 

[McBell]

Obviously most don't consider it fact!

And?
Do you really think an appeal to numbers fallacy is any help?

He talked about the difficulties of something as complex as life spontaneously arising from non-life- going by the mere blobs he could see in a cell through a microscope- without the slightest possibility of imagining in his wildest dreams, the immense deeper complexity of what he was looking at

Darwin's theory relied on the observed sudden jumps in the fossil record being entirely artifacts of an incomplete record, he considered sudden significant jumps fatal to the theory. He could not have imagined that the jumps would be ever more apparent and well established and defined 150 years later- to the point that evolutionists themselves broke up into conflicting theories to try to account for it.

yes, they broke up into conflicting theories to explain the how of the now known proven fact of evolution.

 

[McBell]

Obviously most don't consider it fact!

And?
Do you really think an appeal to numbers fallacy is any help?

He talked about the difficulties of something as complex as life spontaneously arising from non-life- going by the mere blobs he could see in a cell through a microscope- without the slightest possibility of imagining in his wildest dreams, the immense deeper complexity of what he was looking at

Darwin's theory relied on the observed sudden jumps in the fossil record being entirely artifacts of an incomplete record, he considered sudden significant jumps fatal to the theory. He could not have imagined that the jumps would be ever more apparent and well established and defined 150 years later- to the point that evolutionists themselves broke up into conflicting theories to try to account for it.

yes, they broke up into conflicting theories to explain the how of the now known proven fact of evolution.

 

[Sapiens]

If "kinds" were all created at one, or over a short period of time, what sort of fossil record would be observed?

If one "kind" evolved from an earlier "kind" over a long period of time, what sort of fossil record would be observed?

What sort of fossil record is actually observed?

 

[rusra02]

It is.

You quoted someone who accepts evolution. What he's talking about in that quote is whether it's slow and gradual or faster and jerkier, or both.

You used the quote in an attempt to back up your claim that there is some barrier to macroevolution, "And yet we see such limits manifest in the fossil record and in living things today."

It doesn't back up your claim, and you have misrepresented the quote's intended meaning.

I acknowledged in my post that the writer is an evolutionist.

It is.

You quoted someone who accepts evolution. What he's talking about in that quote is whether it's slow and gradual or faster and jerkier, or both.

You used the quote in an attempt to back up your claim that there is some barrier to macroevolution, "And yet we see such limits manifest in the fossil record and in living things today."

It doesn't back up your claim, and you have misrepresented the quote's intended meaning.

I acknowledged in my post that the writer is an evolutionist. What David Raup said was what the fossil record shows. His quote speaks for itself, and what it's "intended meaning" is each reader may judge for themselves. Your claim of misrepresentation is simply mistaken.

 

[rusra02]

Its not a matter of opinion. Its a matter of fact. Its called quote mining. In non-academic circles its often used because it sounds good to gullible constituents when you twist words around and use them out of context. Use quotes within context. If used outside of context, especially in a misleading way, its dishonest.

 

[rusra02]

Its not a matter of opinion. Its a matter of fact. Its called quote mining. In non-academic circles its often used because it sounds good to gullible constituents when you twist words around and use them out of context. Use quotes within context. If used outside of context, especially in a misleading way, its dishonest.

I think evolutionist's claims of quote mining is often nothing more than an impudent attempt to prevent people from learning what evolutionists themselves describe as weaknesses in their theory and evidence hey publish against it. Unless the context shows the quote has been misapplied, claims of quote mining are just another propaganda ploy, IMO.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I acknowledged in my post that the writer is an evolutionist. What David Raup said was what the fossil record shows. His quote speaks for itself, and what it's "intended meaning" is each reader may judge for themselves.

Actually, no. The intended meaning means the meaning that the author intended. It doesn't mean whatever meaning people can interpret it as having out of context. By definition, an intended meaning CAN'T be judged by the reader.

Your claim of misrepresentation is simply mistaken.

Quote mining is a form of misrepresentation. You take a quote out of context that sounds like it lends credibility to your point, despite the fact that this was never the intended meaning of the quote, and the author of the quote vehemently disagrees with your position. Here are some examples:

"Evolutionists are unbiased and base their actions solely on science."
- Rusra02

"I do not believe God created the universe."
- Rusra02

I found both of these quotes from you in this very thread. I guess this means you are an atheist and accept that evolutionists are correct, then?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I think evolutionist's claims of quote mining is often nothing more than an impudent attempt to prevent people from learning what evolutionists themselves describe as weaknesses in their theory and evidence hey publish against it. Unless the context shows the quote has been misapplied, claims of quote mining are just another propaganda ploy, IMO.

The problem is that in the multitude of cases where the context HAS shown that quote is misapplied, posters like you and Guy Threepwood simply ignore it and continue to post your dishonest quote-mines regardless. The difficulty is in dealing with the fact that you are taking quotes you don't understand about a subject you don't understand to represent the views of people that you don't understand. You draw these quotes, and indeed most (if not all) of your argument from creationist websites because you are not interested in viewing or understanding the actual evidence itself, so it doesn't matter to you if you have to resort to dishonesty and lies, because you can simply deny it to yourself as you don't actually understand in what way you're being dishonest. If you don't understand what something actually means, how can you ever be considered dishonest in representing it? And if learning about it means learning that you have been misrepresenting it, what are the chances that you're going to make that effort?

You have made repeated assertions in this very thread which demonstrate that you don't understand evolutionary theory. You get all of your information from biased sources, not scientists, and you have no interest in engaging with the actual evidence.

To that end, let's take a look at that David M. Raup quote mine. Here is the source (which you mis-attributed):

https://archive.org/stream/cbarchiv...0/conflictsbetweendarwinandpaleo1930_djvu.txt

From this, you can clearly see that Raup's intention is that he was speaking strictly about the changes being GRADUAL. He accepts evolutionary theory.

 

[rusra02]

Actually, no. The intended meaning means the meaning that the author intended. It doesn't mean whatever meaning people can interpret it as having out of context. By definition, an intended meaning CAN'T be judged by the reader.


Quote mining is a form of misrepresentation. You take a quote out of context that sounds like it lends credibility to your point, despite the fact that this was never the intended meaning of the quote, and the author of the quote vehemently disagrees with your position. Here are some examples:

"Evolutionists are unbiased and base their actions solely on science."
- Rusra02

"I do not believe God created the universe."
- Rusra02

I found both of these quotes from you in this very thread. I guess this means you are an atheist and accept that evolutionists are correct, then?

I refer you back to my post: " Unless the context shows the quote has been misapplied, claims of quote mining are just another propaganda ploy, IMO." And who is the authority that determines what the author intended? I don't accept your premise that would forbid quoting an evolutionist who points to evidence against the theory simply because he is an evolutionist, or didn't intend to admit evidence that disproves what he believes.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I refer you back to my post: " Unless the context shows the quote has been misapplied, claims of quote mining are just another propaganda ploy, IMO."

This has been done.

And who is the authority that determines what the author intended?

The author.

I don't accept your premise that would forbid quoting an evolutionist who points to evidence against the theory simply because he is an evolutionist, or didn't intend to admit evidence that disproves what he believes.

Because that's never what they are actually saying. Raup never "pointed to evidence against the theory" and the fact that you would claim he is just proves everything that I said earlier. Raup is talking specifically about the evidence of evolution not being a consistent or gradual change as evidenced by the jerky, uneven fossil record. He does not claim that this is any way evidence against evolution.

Rusra, you are now a demonstrated liar.

"Now let me step back from the problem and very generally discuss natural selection and what we know about it. I think it is safe to say that we know for sure that natural selection, as a process, does work. There is a mountain of experimental and observational evidence, much of it predating genetics, which shows that natural selection as a biological process works."

"We must distinguish between the fact of evolution -- defined as change in organisms over time -- and the explanation of this change. Darwin's contribution, through his theory of natural selection, was to suggest how the evolutionary change took place. The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be."

"So natural selection as a process is okay. We are also pretty sure that it goes on in nature although good examples are surprisingly rare."
- David M. Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Palaeontology," https://archive.org/stream/cbarchiv...0/conflictsbetweendarwinandpaleo1930_djvu.txt

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I think evolutionist's claims of quote mining is often nothing more than an impudent attempt to prevent people from learning what evolutionists themselves describe as weaknesses in their theory and evidence hey publish against it. Unless the context shows the quote has been misapplied, claims of quote mining are just another propaganda ploy, IMO.

The lack of smooth transitions is hardly even a controversial observation these days, it's why we now have this rift, between gradualism and punctuated equilibrium, two competing theories attempting to account for an observation the original theory did not predict.

The argument between the two groups, is how to account for the sudden appearances, gaps, the long periods of stagnation in the record, not that they don't exist.