Total Posts:143|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Evolution is a myth.

tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 1:29:20 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
The religion section has been rather dry lately. A lot of Islam bashing going on, which I do not care to partake in. So I guess I will start my own topic that will provoke some discussion on all sides of the spectrum. It is my position that evolution is a myth, but before I can really discuss this, it is important to establish some vocabulary:

Mythology - a body or collection of myths belonging to a people and addressing their origin, history, deities, ancestors, and heroes.
https://www.ahdictionary.com...

Myth - a traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society.
https://www.ahdictionary.com...

A myth can be fictional or truthful. It may also hold portions of both truth or fiction. However, a telling feature of a myth is that it is hard to prove (or disprove) with the technology of the culture. In other words, a myth requires faith. Naturally then, it is not so much whether it is true or false, but that it defines the worldview and forms part of the foundation of a culture. And since a myth is so important to the system of beliefs of a culture, myths die hard.

Now that we have cleared up some gray areas, let's begin. I will break apart the definition for a "myth" and show how evolution meets the criteria for it.

story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes
Does evolution deal with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes? It most definitely deals with supernatural beings. And what is that supernatural being? Natural selection. Consider this in light of the following quotes:

Evolution is "a universal and all-pervading process" that is "the whole of reality." (Julian Huxley, "Evolution and Genetics," What Is Science?, James R. Newman ed. pp 272, 278.)

"evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow." (Francisco Ayala, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution: Theodosius Dobzhansky, 1900-1975," Journal of Heredity 68, no. 1.)

serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people
Evolution is "man's worldview today." (Ernst Mayr, "Evolution," Scientific American 239, pp 47.)

Quite obviously, atheists have their arms twisted and are forced to accept evolution. Evolution, coupled with abiogenesis, serves as their very own creation story. Evolution is also accepted by those who may say that God has a very limited role in the creation processes. It becomes clear that evolution fulfills a sociological purpose for those who want to invest their faith in naturalism.

Evolution is a "metaphysical research program" (Paul A. Schilpp, ed., The Philosophy of Karl Popper, vol. 14, The Library of Living Philosophers, pp 133-43.)

Evolution is a "metaphysical belief." (G. W. Harper, "Alternatives to Evolutionism," School Science Review 51, pp 16.)

"All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel that it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did." (Harold C. Urey, quoted in Christian Science Monitor, January 4, 1962, pp 4)

It may also be noted that some evolutionists have adopted the practices of the Catholic Church in regards to Galileo. Many teachers, scholars, professors, researchers, etc. have lost their positions in the field because of their views on evolution. Some cannot receive grants or tenure. Some of these people were highlighted in the film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Perhaps, to draw the link between evolution and religion even closer, let's examine another similarity. Evolutionists had a prophet, Charles Darwin. It is creepy how many evolutionists will quote his works in their papers, similar to how a Christian would quote the Bible.

Let's not ignore the typical answer from evolutionists when their myth is challenged:
"We rarely discover these rules (which govern the living world) because they are highly complex." (Pierre P. Grasse', Evolution of Living Organisms, pp 2.)

explaining aspects of the natural world
However, all of this information is worthless unless I, or anyone else, can verify that evolution is NOT scientific. Luckily, that is not so hard to do. Science typically adheres to the scientific method. Loosely, we can define it as:
Formulation of a question
Hypothesis
Prediction
Testing
Analysis
https://en.wikipedia.org...

Of course, if the test results do not meet expectations, then the hypothesis can be modified and retested. As I am sure everyone knows, falsifiability is very important:
"Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it [...] It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory - if we look for confirmations. Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions [...] The criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability."
http://www.stephenjaygould.org...

While it is not possible to perform an experiment with a recreation of the conditions at the beginning of earth, there is still a way to perform a falsifiable test for evolution. This would come through the predictive nature of the hypothesis at hand. For example, the big bang hypothesis predicted that there would be cosmic radiation bombarding the earth. This was proven to be true in 1965. Since that is the case, the big bang is now plausible. However, should there have been no cosmic radiation bombarding the earth, then it would have been proven false.

So the issue that many people have with evolution is that it is not predictive!

"The theory of evolution is unfalsifiable [...] If an animal evolves one way, biologists have a perfectly good explanation; but if it evolves some other way, they have an equally good explanation [...] The theory is not [...] a predictive theory as to what must happen." (C. H.Waddington, "Summary Discussion," in Mathematical Challenge to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, ed. Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, pp 98.)

"Darwin's hypothesis [...] has the character of unfalsifiable philosophy: it can explain anything and predicts practically nothing [...] Darwinism [...] requires belief [...] It has become the scientist's paradigm, and he is rarely able to admit that it is fragile and charged with philosophy." (Mark A.Ludwig, Computer Viruses, Artificial Life, and Evolution, pp 295.)

This renders, as the quotes state above, evolution unfalsifiable. Evolution deals with random and unpredictable mutations. Compare that to radioactive decay, which has predictable randomness. Liken evolution to the "god of the gaps" argument:
"Chance becomes a sort of providence, which [...] is secretly worshipped." (Pierre-P. Grass', Evolution of Living Organisms, pp 107.)

Continued in second post...
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 1:29:45 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
As technology gets better and advances, we should be able to test previously untestable ideas. Obviously this should be the case with Darwin's idea. While unpredictable and random mutations cannot be tested. Other portions of the theory can be. However, instead of actually addressing issues with evolution, evolutionists simply redefine/modify the theory over and over. This raises suspicion for some people.

"Be suspicious of a theory if more and more hypotheses are needed to support it as new facts become available." (Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space, pp 135.)

Karl Popper, the same man who considered evolution a "metaphysical research program" stated that "reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation [...] is always possible, but [...] only at the price of [...] lowering its scientific status." (Paul A. Schilpp, ed., The Philosophy of Karl Popper, vol. 1, pp 133, 143.)

Evolution has become a hard myth to die. Why? As previously stated, it is the worldview of so many today. Naturalists accept this myth as part of their very own creation story. It is assumed that evolution is true.

"Paleontologists [...] assume that the Darwinian hypothesis is correct [and] interpret fossil data according to it." The "duty [of biologists] is to destroy the myth of evolution [...] to think about the weaknesses of the interpretations and extrapolations that theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths." (Pierre-P. Grasse', Evolution of Living Organisms, pp 7, 8.)

I will conclude with a few more quotes:

"[According to] the Darwinian theory [...] a single plant, a single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur [...] There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it." (Pierre-P. Grasse', Evolution of Living Organisms, pp 103, 104.)

"The doctrine of evolution has swept the world, not on the strength of its scientific merits, but precisely in its capacity as a Gnostic myth. It affirms, in effect, that living beings created themselves, which is, in essence, a metaphysical claim [...] evolutionism is in truth a metaphysical doctrine decked out in scientific garb." (Wolfgang Smith, Teilhardism and the New Religion, pp 242.)

"It is as a religion of science that Darwinism chiefly held, and holds, men's minds [...] Darwinian theory has itself become an orthodoxy preached by its adherents with religious fervor, and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers imperfect in scientific faith." (Marjorie Grene, "The Faith of Darwinism," Encounter 74, pp 48.)

"neo-Darwinism will ultimately be viewed as only 'a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon biology.'" (Charles Mann, "Lynn Margulis: Science's Unruly Earth Mother," Science 252, pp 378-81.)

These posts are based off of the collaborative work of Dr. Hugh Henry, Daniel J. Dyke, and Dr. Charles Cruze called "Evolution as Mythology."
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
UtherPenguin
Posts: 3,674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 1:33:02 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 1:29:20 AM, tstor wrote:
The religion section has been rather dry lately. A lot of Islam bashing going on

Wanna see Islam bashing? Look at the Politics forum.
"Change your sig."
~YYW
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 1:34:50 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 1:33:02 AM, UtherPenguin wrote:

The religion section has been rather dry lately. A lot of Islam bashing going on

Wanna see Islam bashing? Look at the Politics forum.

I used to make a habit of responding to their ignorance, but it is the equivalent of trying to talk to a brick wall.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
UtherPenguin
Posts: 3,674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 1:36:19 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 1:34:50 AM, tstor wrote:
At 1/19/2016 1:33:02 AM, UtherPenguin wrote:

The religion section has been rather dry lately. A lot of Islam bashing going on

Wanna see Islam bashing? Look at the Politics forum.

I used to make a habit of responding to their ignorance, but it is the equivalent of trying to talk to a brick wall.

That's an insult to brick walls. I mean, with enough force, you *could* make a brick wall move.
"Change your sig."
~YYW
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 1:40:55 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 1:36:19 AM, UtherPenguin wrote:

Wanna see Islam bashing? Look at the Politics forum.

I used to make a habit of responding to their ignorance, but it is the equivalent of trying to talk to a brick wall.

That's an insult to brick walls. I mean, with enough force, you *could* make a brick wall move.

I agree. They will try their best to cling to their beliefs. Ultimately, that often means ignoring what others say in order to leave their agenda unchallenged.

"Hold to forgiveness; command what is right; But turn away from the ignorant." (7:199)
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
Cobalt
Posts: 991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 1:50:19 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 1:29:20 AM, tstor wrote:

There is so much wrong with this comparison that I'm getting an actual headache just thinking about it.

story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes

Referring to "natural selection" as a "being" is akin to calling gravity a being. In fact, it's akin to calling literally anything a being. Next, the key word is "supernatural", the likes of natural selection does not concern itself with. You can simply say the term "supernatural natural selection" in your head and see the inconsistency.

serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people

Any belief could be considered a world view. Gravity is a world view. Math is a world view. The written word is a world view. This is not a unique feature to natural selection and does not qualify it as a myth.

It may also be noted that some evolutionists have adopted the practices of the Catholic Church in regards to Galileo. Many teachers, scholars, professors, researchers, etc. have lost their positions in the field because of their views on evolution. Some cannot receive grants or tenure. Some of these people were highlighted in the film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Perhaps, to draw the link between evolution and religion even closer, let's examine another similarity. Evolutionists had a prophet, Charles Darwin. It is creepy how many evolutionists will quote his works in their papers, similar to how a Christian would quote the Bible.

The first part of this is irrelevant. The second, regarding Charles Darwin as a prophet, is ridiculous. A prophet is a teacher or proclaimer of the will of God. Charles Darwin did not profess to know the will of God, nor is he known for professing his wisdom regarding God.

Let's not ignore the typical answer from evolutionists when their myth is challenged:
"We rarely discover these rules (which govern the living world) because they are highly complex." (Pierre P. Grasse', Evolution of Living Organisms, pp 2.)

Evolution is fairly complex -- but there is a great wealth of evidence supporting its truthfulness. I'll again bring up gravity and point out that we also don't know the specifics of how it works, but we have plenty of evidence suggesting that it exists.

explaining aspects of the natural world
However, all of this information is worthless unless I, or anyone else, can verify that evolution is NOT scientific. Luckily, that is not so hard to do. Science typically adheres to the scientific method. Loosely, we can define it as:
Formulation of a question
Hypothesis
Prediction
Testing
Analysis
https://en.wikipedia.org...

Of course, if the test results do not meet expectations, then the hypothesis can be modified and retested. As I am sure everyone knows, falsifiability is very important:
"Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it [...] It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory - if we look for confirmations. Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions [...] The criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability."
http://www.stephenjaygould.org...


While it is not possible to perform an experiment with a recreation of the conditions at the beginning of earth, there is still a way to perform a falsifiable test for evolution. This would come through the predictive nature of the hypothesis at hand. For example, the big bang hypothesis predicted that there would be cosmic radiation bombarding the earth. This was proven to be true in 1965. Since that is the case, the big bang is now plausible. However, should there have been no cosmic radiation bombarding the earth, then it would have been proven false.

So the issue that many people have with evolution is that it is not predictive!

"The theory of evolution is unfalsifiable [...] If an animal evolves one way, biologists have a perfectly good explanation; but if it evolves some other way, they have an equally good explanation [...] The theory is not [...] a predictive theory as to what must happen." (C. H.Waddington, "Summary Discussion," in Mathematical Challenge to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, ed. Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, pp 98.)

"Darwin's hypothesis [...] has the character of unfalsifiable philosophy: it can explain anything and predicts practically nothing [...] Darwinism [...] requires belief [...] It has become the scientist's paradigm, and he is rarely able to admit that it is fragile and charged with philosophy." (Mark A.Ludwig, Computer Viruses, Artificial Life, and Evolution, pp 295.)

This renders, as the quotes state above, evolution unfalsifiable. Evolution deals with random and unpredictable mutations. Compare that to radioactive decay, which has predictable randomness. Liken evolution to the "god of the gaps" argument:
"Chance becomes a sort of providence, which [...] is secretly worshipped." (Pierre-P. Grass', Evolution of Living Organisms, pp 107.)

It is ridiculous to claim that evolution is not falsifiable. One would simply need to, as you've stated, provide evidence that our understanding of evolution is incorrect. An unfalsifiable doctrine is one in which there is no way one could conceive of proving it to be untrue. For example, "unicorns do not exist" is an unfalsifiable doctrine. Nearly all doctrines claiming the existence of something are falsifiable, though falsifiability in itself does not make a theory good.

Continued in second post...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 1:56:02 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
https://books.google.com...

Stephen Jay Gould admitted: "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.."
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Maccabee
Posts: 1,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 1:57:54 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
First, we need to define the term evolution. Are we talking about macro or micro evolution?
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,576
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 2:00:17 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 1:34:50 AM, tstor wrote:

I used to make a habit of responding to their ignorance, but it is the equivalent of trying to talk to a brick wall.

I was about to say the same thing about you and this thread.

What's so hilarious is that you believers cannot even manage to accept that minuscule changes over massive time spans can result in change, perfectly logical, yet you have no problem with invisible super sky daddies waving their magical hands. Very funny stuff.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,576
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 2:02:32 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 1:57:54 AM, Maccabee wrote:
First, we need to define the term evolution. Are we talking about macro or micro evolution?

The process for both is pretty much the same, macroevolution just happens over longer periods of time. They both share the same postulates: Natural selection and diversity of species.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Cobalt
Posts: 991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 2:05:14 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 1:29:45 AM, tstor wrote:
As technology gets better and advances, we should be able to test previously untestable ideas. Obviously this should be the case with Darwin's idea. While unpredictable and random mutations cannot be tested. Other portions of the theory can be. However, instead of actually addressing issues with evolution, evolutionists simply redefine/modify the theory over and over. This raises suspicion for some people.

I don't believe the theory of evolution has been modified much at all since its inception. Additionally, we have witness random mutations multiple times. There is no doubt that a) genes mutate and b) pretty much everyone has some mutated gene or another. Mutations are quite common -- they are just rarely of significance.

"Be suspicious of a theory if more and more hypotheses are needed to support it as new facts become available." (Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space, pp 135.)

Karl Popper, the same man who considered evolution a "metaphysical research program" stated that "reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation [...] is always possible, but [...] only at the price of [...] lowering its scientific status." (Paul A. Schilpp, ed., The Philosophy of Karl Popper, vol. 1, pp 133, 143.)

Popper would have some ground to stand on if scientists were in the business of continuously modifying evolution to skid past technicalities. But that simply doesn't happen. Darwin's evolution is largely the same evolution we believe in now. We just have a few more details, which one might expect to surface over time.

Evolution has become a hard myth to die. Why? As previously stated, it is the worldview of so many today. Naturalists accept this myth as part of their very own creation story. It is assumed that evolution is true.

"Paleontologists [...] assume that the Darwinian hypothesis is correct [and] interpret fossil data according to it." The "duty [of biologists] is to destroy the myth of evolution [...] to think about the weaknesses of the interpretations and extrapolations that theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths." (Pierre-P. Grasse', Evolution of Living Organisms, pp 7, 8.)

You shouldn't need a wealth of quotes to make a point. In fact, the sheer magnitude of these quotes really hurts your position. You can think up a quote you want to have and be nearly guaranteed someone somewhere has said it. You're attempting an appeal to authority using soundbytes instead of analysis.

And some 97% of scientists believe in evolution, so you're not likely to find that biologists are attempting to discredit it anymore than the paleontologists.

I will conclude with a few more quotes:

"[According to] the Darwinian theory [...] a single plant, a single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur [...] There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it." (Pierre-P. Grasse', Evolution of Living Organisms, pp 103, 104.)

A common, but misguided thing often said about evolution. Think of it this way: there is a 10 sided die. Whenever a creature reproduces, the die is rolled.

The previous quote implies that, if a 10 is not rolled, the creature wil not continue to live. This is not what evolution claims. Rather, evolution claims that if a 10 is rolled, a similar, but notably different creature will be born. And then you roll some 100 sided die, and if there's another 100 -- the creature lives.

Once a creature has the ability to survive, it can reproduce without having to worry too much about death. Once some luck happens and a somewhat different, but survivable creature is born, that's evolution. (Technically that's natural selection -- but evolution is just natural selection over long periods of time.)

"The doctrine of evolution has swept the world, not on the strength of its scientific merits, but precisely in its capacity as a Gnostic myth. It affirms, in effect, that living beings created themselves, which is, in essence, a metaphysical claim [...] evolutionism is in truth a metaphysical doctrine decked out in scientific garb." (Wolfgang Smith, Teilhardism and the New Religion, pp 242.)

Look at this quote. Notice how it's just one guys opinion and says very little in the way of anything interesting. The only interesting part is when he seems to find it ridiculous the idea that "living creatures create themselves." It's worth responding to this by asking a) if you're a living creature and b) if you came from other living creatures. You'll find the answer to both is yes. Living creatures give birth to other living creatures.

"It is as a religion of science that Darwinism chiefly held, and holds, men's minds [...] Darwinian theory has itself become an orthodoxy preached by its adherents with religious fervor, and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers imperfect in scientific faith." (Marjorie Grene, "The Faith of Darwinism," Encounter 74, pp 48.)

No interesting claims here. No facts, no logic. Just anti-evolution exposition. I know this is the religion thread, but this topic is scientific in nature and should not be bothered with quotes that aren't fact, fact claiming, or logical. Marjorie Grene's quote does nothing for anyone here.

"neo-Darwinism will ultimately be viewed as only 'a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon biology.'" (Charles Mann, "Lynn Margulis: Science's Unruly Earth Mother," Science 252, pp 378-81.)

Again. No claims here. No anything.

These posts are based off of the collaborative work of Dr. Hugh Henry, Daniel J. Dyke, and Dr. Charles Cruze called "Evolution as Mythology."
Maccabee
Posts: 1,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 2:07:34 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 2:02:32 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/19/2016 1:57:54 AM, Maccabee wrote:
First, we need to define the term evolution. Are we talking about macro or micro evolution?

The process for both is pretty much the same, macroevolution just happens over longer periods of time. They both share the same postulates: Natural selection and diversity of species.

But have we seen anything above micro evolution?
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 2:11:11 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 1:40:55 AM, tstor wrote:
At 1/19/2016 1:36:19 AM, UtherPenguin wrote:

Wanna see Islam bashing? Look at the Politics forum.

I used to make a habit of responding to their ignorance, but it is the equivalent of trying to talk to a brick wall.

That's an insult to brick walls. I mean, with enough force, you *could* make a brick wall move.

I agree. They will try their best to cling to their beliefs. Ultimately, that often means ignoring what others say in order to leave their agenda unchallenged.

"Hold to forgiveness; command what is right; But turn away from the ignorant." (7:199)

Says the guy starting yet another "Evolution is a myth." thread.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 2:13:27 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 2:07:34 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/19/2016 2:02:32 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/19/2016 1:57:54 AM, Maccabee wrote:
First, we need to define the term evolution. Are we talking about macro or micro evolution?

The process for both is pretty much the same, macroevolution just happens over longer periods of time. They both share the same postulates: Natural selection and diversity of species.

But have we seen anything above micro evolution?

If I provided you with an example of a change in an organism over time; could you explain to me how you would personally determine whether that change constitutes macro or micro evolution?
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 2:25:36 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 1:29:20 AM, tstor wrote:
Quite obviously, atheists have their arms twisted and are forced to accept evolution. Evolution, coupled with abiogenesis, serves as their very own creation story. Evolution is also accepted by those who may say that God has a very limited role in the creation processes. It becomes clear that evolution fulfills a sociological purpose for those who want to invest their faith in naturalism.

Evolution is not a myth. It's a well supported, well substantiated explanation of how life on this planet got to be the way it is.

This explanation provides basic processes that explain:

a.) The progression of life through the fossil record.
b.) Why there are tight constraints of what types of life we do find, and don't find.
c.) Why some species look more similar than others.
d.) Why the patterns in genetics are the way they are.
e.) Why the patterns in taxonomy are the way they are; including weird design, organs or features that look identical to something in similar species that do something different, and why many species sometimes differ in odd ways based on inferred evolutionary ancestors.
f.) Rapid changes in the fossil morphology between geological boundaries.

To establish the validity of Evolution, it has been rigorously tested in almost every way possible. A test, in this regard, is any observation that can be made of some element of reality of which the details is not yet known; which is expected to yield a specific result that:

a) Cannot reasonably be expected to be true if the explanation is untrue, or if some other explanation is true.

b) Must necessarily be true, or highly likely to be true if the explanation is accurate.

Given this, tests such as the discovery of transitional fossils, the continued discovery and non violation of the taxonomic progression of life, the continued non-violation of the nested hierarchy, chronological ordering of transitions and taxonomic changes over time; the genetic relatedness of organisms including specific pattern similarity and whole genome similarity between any two species equivalently matching taxonomy; the discovery of genetic mutation mechanisms, and operational behavior of DNA, the discovery of embryological development patterns and the role of DNA in their modification, the discovery of several complete fossil lineages, including humans, ERV lineage comparisons, human chromosome 2, and discovery of mutational pathways that provide a genetic mutational basis for phenotypical changes between disparate species; all count as tests of evolution because every item listed above completely fulfills both categories completely.

Creationists, as yourself, often claim tests of evolution fail; but do not reasonably show, or logically satisfy either criteria (a) or (b): IE; there is reason to believe the result is either possible, or expected under evolutionary conditions.

Moreover, to counter evolutionary claims, speculative, unsupported assertions are made that can neither be disproved or proved to explain away the evidence without requiring evolution (which can be done with any theory, irrespective of how wrong it is); or claims are made that have already been disproved. There is no other type of claim.

So in this regard, Evolution is science. Well demonstrated, well supported and well evidenced science. It, combined with Geology, Physics, Paleontology, and other fields of science, have established a testable, and independently verifiable narrative of the history of life and the earth that are concordant with one another based on the evidence.

While not everything aspect is known (nor can it reasonably expected to be), concerning this narrative, and some elements are less established than others; the only reasonable conclusion one can draw from the evidence is that life evolved from a universal ancestor; and the earth is approximately 4.6bn years old. Every piece of evidence that fulfills both criteria I mentioned this above supports evolution, and no piece of evidence that fulfills both criteria supports any form of Divine Creation.

As such, it is not a myth, and it is not believed on faith.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 2:30:19 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
Sex is the queen of problems in evolutionary biology. Perhaps no other natural phenomenon has aroused so much interest; certainly none has sowed as much confusion.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 2:34:52 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 1:29:20 AM, tstor wrote:
The religion section has been rather dry lately. A lot of Islam bashing going on, which I do not care to partake in. So I guess I will start my own topic that will provoke some discussion on all sides of the spectrum. It is my position that evolution is a myth, but before I can really discuss this, it is important to establish some vocabulary:

Mythology - a body or collection of myths belonging to a people and addressing their origin, history, deities, ancestors, and heroes.
https://www.ahdictionary.com...

Myth - a traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society.
https://www.ahdictionary.com...

A myth can be fictional or truthful. It may also hold portions of both truth or fiction. However, a telling feature of a myth is that it is hard to prove (or disprove) with the technology of the culture. In other words, a myth requires faith. Naturally then, it is not so much whether it is true or false, but that it defines the worldview and forms part of the foundation of a culture. And since a myth is so important to the system of beliefs of a culture, myths die hard.

Now that we have cleared up some gray areas, let's begin. I will break apart the definition for a "myth" and show how evolution meets the criteria for it.

I don't think anything has been cleared up by these definitions. Evolution does not address "origins", but rather the diversity of life. Secondly, a myth may have a grain of truth deep down, but it is not "truth". It is an embellishment of truth. Evolution is truth, and it can and has been objectively established time and again as such.

The definitions you've provided are not applicable to evolution. I see no reason to go any further here.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,576
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 2:41:58 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 2:07:34 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/19/2016 2:02:32 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/19/2016 1:57:54 AM, Maccabee wrote:
First, we need to define the term evolution. Are we talking about macro or micro evolution?

The process for both is pretty much the same, macroevolution just happens over longer periods of time. They both share the same postulates: Natural selection and diversity of species.

But have we seen anything above micro evolution?

Yes, all life on Earth today.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 2:43:42 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
Precambrian era rabbit
Evolution Conundrum

https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,576
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 3:01:57 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 2:43:42 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
Precambrian era rabbit
Evolution Conundrum

https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Interesting how you just make stuff up as you go along and never bother reading the links you provide.

"The fossil was a photoshop fraud and the story a hoax."

What compels you to be willfully ignorant?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Maccabee
Posts: 1,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 3:07:31 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 2:13:27 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/19/2016 2:07:34 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/19/2016 2:02:32 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/19/2016 1:57:54 AM, Maccabee wrote:
First, we need to define the term evolution. Are we talking about macro or micro evolution?

The process for both is pretty much the same, macroevolution just happens over longer periods of time. They both share the same postulates: Natural selection and diversity of species.

But have we seen anything above micro evolution?

If I provided you with an example of a change in an organism over time; could you explain to me how you would personally determine whether that change constitutes macro or micro evolution?

If you can demonstrate that we observe one family evolving into another then I would accept evolution.
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 3:37:29 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 1:50:19 AM, Cobalt wrote:

There is so much wrong with this comparison that I'm getting an actual headache just thinking about it.
Good, I look forward to your response.

story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes

Referring to "natural selection" as a "being" is akin to calling gravity a being. In fact, it's akin to calling literally anything a being. Next, the key word is "supernatural", the likes of natural selection does not concern itself with. You can simply say the term "supernatural natural selection" in your head and see the inconsistency.
You are quoting me out of context. I go on to explain that heading with:

Does evolution deal with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes? It most definitely deals with supernatural beings. And what is that supernatural being? Natural selection. Consider this in light of the following quotes:

Evolution is "a universal and all-pervading process" that is "the whole of reality." (Julian Huxley, "Evolution and Genetics," What Is Science?, James R. Newman ed. pp 272, 278.)

"evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow." (Francisco Ayala, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution: Theodosius Dobzhansky, 1900-1975," Journal of Heredity 68, no. 1.)


Attributes that are commonly given to a supernatural being, such as God, are now being given to natural selection (as the quotes show). Therefore, the view of natural selection has shifted toward, for some, a supernatural being.

serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people

Any belief could be considered a world view. Gravity is a world view. Math is a world view. The written word is a world view. This is not a unique feature to natural selection and does not qualify it as a myth.
If that piece of the definition was not needed, then it would not have been included by the American Heritage Dictionary. You could say that this one aspect alone does not define a myth, which I would agree with. Hence why I did not stop here. Evolution is a worldview in a different sense than other things in this world.

"The concept of evolution was soon extended into other than biological fields. Inorganic subjects such as the life histories of stars and formation of the chemical elements on the one hand, and on the other subjects like linguistics, social anthropology, and comparative law and religion, began to be studied from an evolutionary angle, until today we are enabled to see evolution as a universal and all-pervading process." (Julian Huxley, "Evolution and Genetics," in V.R. Newman (ed.), What is Science? pp 272.)

It may also be noted that some evolutionists have adopted the practices of the Catholic Church in regards to Galileo. Many teachers, scholars, professors, researchers, etc. have lost their positions in the field because of their views on evolution. Some cannot receive grants or tenure. Some of these people were highlighted in the film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Perhaps, to draw the link between evolution and religion even closer, let's examine another similarity. Evolutionists had a prophet, Charles Darwin. It is creepy how many evolutionists will quote his works in their papers, similar to how a Christian would quote the Bible.

The first part of this is irrelevant. The second, regarding Charles Darwin as a prophet, is ridiculous. A prophet is a teacher or proclaimer of the will of God. Charles Darwin did not profess to know the will of God, nor is he known for professing his wisdom regarding God.
The first part is far from irrelevant. Is it not strange that evolutionists have resorted to pushing opposing views out of the field? There are two definitions of "prophet" that can be applied to Charles Darwin.

prophet - a person who speaks by divine inspiration or as the interpreter through whom the will of a god is expressed.
https://www.ahdictionary.com...

In relation to the above definition:
god - a being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.

god - one that is worshiped, idealized, or followed
https://www.ahdictionary.com...

prophet - the chief spokesperson of a movement or cause.
https://www.ahdictionary.com...

Let's not ignore the typical answer from evolutionists when their myth is challenged:
"We rarely discover these rules (which govern the living world) because they are highly complex." (Pierre P. Grasse', Evolution of Living Organisms, pp 2.)

Evolution is fairly complex -- but there is a great wealth of evidence supporting its truthfulness. I'll again bring up gravity and point out that we also don't know the specifics of how it works, but we have plenty of evidence suggesting that it exists.
Then show me the evidence that will make me change my mind on this subject.

This renders, as the quotes state above, evolution unfalsifiable. Evolution deals with random and unpredictable mutations. Compare that to radioactive decay, which has predictable randomness. Liken evolution to the "god of the gaps" argument:
"Chance becomes a sort of providence, which [...] is secretly worshipped." (Pierre-P. Grass', Evolution of Living Organisms, pp 107.)

It is ridiculous to claim that evolution is not falsifiable. One would simply need to, as you've stated, provide evidence that our understanding of evolution is incorrect. An unfalsifiable doctrine is one in which there is no way one could conceive of proving it to be untrue. For example, "unicorns do not exist" is an unfalsifiable doctrine. Nearly all doctrines claiming the existence of something are falsifiable, though falsifiability in itself does not make a theory good.
Then tell me how one would falsify evolution? I gave my case for why evolution is not falsifiable, which you did not touch, so now give me your case as to why it is.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 3:37:30 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 1:57:54 AM, Maccabee wrote:
First, we need to define the term evolution. Are we talking about macro or micro evolution?
Good question. Generally speaking, evolution is used combining both. So the "myth" of evolution includes the whole package. Though, as stated in the original post, a myth can contain both fact and fiction. Microevolution is a fact, macroevolution is seemingly fiction.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 3:37:32 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 2:00:17 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

I used to make a habit of responding to their ignorance, but it is the equivalent of trying to talk to a brick wall.

I was about to say the same thing about you and this thread.
I guess I can look forward to not seeing you on this thread?

What's so hilarious is that you believers cannot even manage to accept that minuscule changes over massive time spans can result in change, perfectly logical, yet you have no problem with invisible super sky daddies waving their magical hands. Very funny stuff.
I hate to do it, but I will use an example by Kent Hovind. Dog breeders try to get the smallest of dogs and the largest of dogs. Would we agree that there are limits? If there are none, will dog breeders eventually get a dog the size of Texas? How about one the size of an ant?
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 3:37:36 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 2:05:14 AM, Cobalt wrote:

As technology gets better and advances, we should be able to test previously untestable ideas. Obviously this should be the case with Darwin's idea. While unpredictable and random mutations cannot be tested. Other portions of the theory can be. However, instead of actually addressing issues with evolution, evolutionists simply redefine/modify the theory over and over. This raises suspicion for some people.

I don't believe the theory of evolution has been modified much at all since its inception. Additionally, we have witness random mutations multiple times. There is no doubt that a) genes mutate and b) pretty much everyone has some mutated gene or another. Mutations are quite common -- they are just rarely of significance.
Evolution has evolved quite a bit:
http://epicofevolution.com...

I do not deny that mutations exist.

"Be suspicious of a theory if more and more hypotheses are needed to support it as new facts become available." (Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space, pp 135.)

Karl Popper, the same man who considered evolution a "metaphysical research program" stated that "reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation [...] is always possible, but [...] only at the price of [...] lowering its scientific status." (Paul A. Schilpp, ed., The Philosophy of Karl Popper, vol. 1, pp 133, 143.)

Popper would have some ground to stand on if scientists were in the business of continuously modifying evolution to skid past technicalities. But that simply doesn't happen. Darwin's evolution is largely the same evolution we believe in now. We just have a few more details, which one might expect to surface over time.
Examine link above.

Evolution has become a hard myth to die. Why? As previously stated, it is the worldview of so many today. Naturalists accept this myth as part of their very own creation story. It is assumed that evolution is true.

"Paleontologists [...] assume that the Darwinian hypothesis is correct [and] interpret fossil data according to it." The "duty [of biologists] is to destroy the myth of evolution [...] to think about the weaknesses of the interpretations and extrapolations that theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths." (Pierre-P. Grasse', Evolution of Living Organisms, pp 7, 8.)

You shouldn't need a wealth of quotes to make a point. In fact, the sheer magnitude of these quotes really hurts your position. You can think up a quote you want to have and be nearly guaranteed someone somewhere has said it. You're attempting an appeal to authority using soundbytes instead of analysis.
I am not putting in quotes out of laziness, though that does sound appealing. Look at the names of the people I am quoting from. These are not Bill Nye engineers, they are legitimate scientists and researchers in relevant fields.

I will conclude with a few more quotes:

"[According to] the Darwinian theory [...] a single plant, a single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur [...] There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it." (Pierre-P. Grasse', Evolution of Living Organisms, pp 103, 104.)

A common, but misguided thing often said about evolution. Think of it this way: there is a 10 sided die. Whenever a creature reproduces, the die is rolled.

The previous quote implies that, if a 10 is not rolled, the creature wil not continue to live.
Not sure how you came to that conclusion, but the rest of your response is based on this false idea.

"The doctrine of evolution has swept the world, not on the strength of its scientific merits, but precisely in its capacity as a Gnostic myth. It affirms, in effect, that living beings created themselves, which is, in essence, a metaphysical claim [...] evolutionism is in truth a metaphysical doctrine decked out in scientific garb." (Wolfgang Smith, Teilhardism and the New Religion, pp 242.)

Look at this quote. Notice how it's just one guys opinion and says very little in the way of anything interesting. The only interesting part is when he seems to find it ridiculous the idea that "living creatures create themselves." It's worth responding to this by asking a) if you're a living creature and b) if you came from other living creatures. You'll find the answer to both is yes. Living creatures give birth to other living creatures.
I put it at the end because it was merely one man's opinion. That man just happens to have a B.A. in Philosophy, Physics and Mathematics from Cornell, a M.S. in Physics from Purdue, and a Ph.D in Mathematics from Columbia. So I do not take his words lightly, but I also do not blindly accept them.

And by " living beings created themselves," he is discussing abiogenesis and the natural evolution of life.

"It is as a religion of science that Darwinism chiefly held, and holds, men's minds [...] Darwinian theory has itself become an orthodoxy preached by its adherents with religious fervor, and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers imperfect in scientific faith." (Marjorie Grene, "The Faith of Darwinism," Encounter 74, pp 48.)

No interesting claims here. No facts, no logic. Just anti-evolution exposition. I know this is the religion thread, but this topic is scientific in nature and should not be bothered with quotes that aren't fact, fact claiming, or logical. Marjorie Grene's quote does nothing for anyone here.
Hence why it is at the end and not a supporting quote in my actual content. However, it is worth noting that she had a doctorate in philosophy from Radcliffe College. She wrote extensively on the philosophy of science and biology.

"neo-Darwinism will ultimately be viewed as only 'a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon biology.'" (Charles Mann, "Lynn Margulis: Science's Unruly Earth Mother," Science 252, pp 378-81.)

Again. No claims here. No anything.
Same story as above, but let's examine her credentials and major contributions to science:
https://en.wikipedia.org...
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 3:37:36 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 2:11:11 AM, TBR wrote:

Says the guy starting yet another "Evolution is a myth." thread.
You have quite the observant eye.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 3:37:38 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 2:25:36 AM, Ramshutu wrote:

Quite obviously, atheists have their arms twisted and are forced to accept evolution. Evolution, coupled with abiogenesis, serves as their very own creation story. Evolution is also accepted by those who may say that God has a very limited role in the creation processes. It becomes clear that evolution fulfills a sociological purpose for those who want to invest their faith in naturalism.
I will start here simply because it seems to be the most relevant part.

Given this, tests such as the discovery of transitional fossils,
"With the benefit of hindsight, I am amazed at how long we accepted that gradual morphological change was the norm when data to support this belief were so sparse and the discrepancy had been known since Darwin"s time. Examples of gradual evolutionary trends in the fossil record can be counted on our fingers and we simply ignored countless examples that do not show the expected pattern. Lack of morphological change was equated with lack of data and the few examples of trends were with the truth"the few known examples of gradual trends are no more than random walks that just happen to be more or less linear." (Christopher R. C. Paul, "Adequacy, Completeness, and the Fossil Record," in The Adequacy of the Fossil Record, eds. Stephen K. Donovan and Christopher R. C. Paul, pp 3, 4.)

By "transitional fossils," do you mean one taxon transforming into another? Or do you mean the entire ensemble of organisms between two time points in the fossil record?

the continued discovery and non violation of the taxonomic progression of life,
Care to provide examples for me?

the continued non-violation of the nested hierarchy,
Cetaceans, mesonychids, and artiodactyls do not violate nested hierarchies?

chronological ordering of transitions and taxonomic changes over time;
Expand on this, as the chronology seems to shift around often.

the genetic relatedness of organisms including specific pattern similarity and whole genome similarity between any two species equivalently matching taxonomy;
I have no issue with similarities in genetics. That is to be expected with a common creator/designer. It argues no more powerfully for a common ancestor than a common creator/designer. And besides, there are vast differences in gene expression and regulation as well as brain structure.

the discovery of genetic mutation mechanisms, and operational behavior of DNA,
This does not argue on behalf of evolution. Unless you want to expand on this more.

the discovery of embryological development patterns and the role of DNA in their modification,
Similarities in embryonic development, once again, argue no stronger for a common ancestor than a common creator/designer. As for the role of DNA, such as the Hedgehog gene, it does not really make a case for evolution.

the discovery of several complete fossil lineages, including humans,
Care to give me some examples? This is news to me. Afterall, you have lied to me about humans being an example. Just last year they discovered a new "ancestor" of humans:
http://www.nytimes.com...

ERV lineage comparisons,
You will need to expand on this. As far as I know, they do not prove evolution.

I will now stop here because there is no need to get ahead of ourselves and bog down the above claims any further.

Creationists, as yourself, often claim tests of evolution fail; but do not reasonably show, or logically satisfy either criteria (a) or (b): IE; there is reason to believe the result is either possible, or expected under evolutionary conditions.
Let's examine a:

a) Cannot reasonably be expected to be true if the explanation is untrue, or if some other explanation is true.
You have now shown me that the above evidences would be untrue without evolution.

Moreover, to counter evolutionary claims, speculative, unsupported assertions are made that can neither be disproved or proved to explain away the evidence without requiring evolution (which can be done with any theory, irrespective of how wrong it is); or claims are made that have already been disproved. There is no other type of claim.
I accept that my position is not scientific, you are the one who has to prove evolution to be scientific.

So in this regard, Evolution is science.
You did not prove anything, so perhaps you will clarify yourself in your next response.

As such, it is not a myth, and it is not believed on faith.
To be seen.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 3:37:40 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 2:34:52 AM, Skepticalone wrote:

I don't think anything has been cleared up by these definitions. Evolution does not address "origins", but rather the diversity of life. Secondly, a myth may have a grain of truth deep down, but it is not "truth". It is an embellishment of truth. Evolution is truth, and it can and has been objectively established time and again as such.
Evolution deals with origins in a sense. Origins and ancestry are synonymous:
http://www.thesaurus.com...

Show me the objective evidence for evolution so that I can retract all of my statements.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
Cobalt
Posts: 991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 4:07:58 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 3:37:36 AM, tstor wrote:

Evolution has evolved quite a bit:
http://epicofevolution.com...

I do not deny that mutations exist.

Interesting article. I didn't realize how little scientific progress had been made in the field at the time of Darwin's "evolutionary ideas". It goes to show that Darwin had some foresight. Beyond that, if you look at the handy "VIST" chart on the website you linked, you'll notice that "old" parts of the theory were not removed. You'll also notice that no new restrictions were added, to escape any arguments or the like. Rather, our increasing knowledge of DNA and its function has only helped to bolster the legitimacy of evolution.

I would completely agree with your point if evolutionist continued to "refine and restrict" the theory, so as to avoid "plot holes", but that simply isn't the case. (Your own site agrees with this.) Rather, evolution has become more describable because of our increase in knowledge as it regards things directly involved in evolution. Most any incomplete scientific theory gets more detailed over the years. That's the natural result of it being studied.

Examine link above.

The link was examined. Am I missing something relevant?

I am not putting in quotes out of laziness, though that does sound appealing. Look at the names of the people I am quoting from. These are not Bill Nye engineers, they are legitimate scientists and researchers in relevant fields.

Yes -- there are legitimate scientists everywhere who completely disagree with another particular legitimate scientist in most every field. My issue is that your quotes say little in the way of evidence of logic. Rather, it seems like you're making the argument that "such-such said this, so this must be true." We could go back and forth all day quoting the literal millions of scientists who agree with our particular opinion -- but that's not useful. It much more useful to present logical, evidence based arguments. People who have a reasonable counter will present it, those who do not won't.

Not sure how you came to that conclusion, but the rest of your response is based on this false idea.

I'm not coming to a conclusion -- I'm relating to your a fundamental premise of evolution. A living species will probably continue living until it is extinguished by either predators, disease, or the environment. The "random chance" that evolution relies on does not purport that species survive based on pure chance, but rather new species emerge by pure chance.

The difference is very important. If a species' survival was not in its favor, it simply wouldn't survive. If a species' evolution was not in its favor, but still possible -- then evolution would occur (given that the improbable becomes probably given great amounts of time.)

I put it at the end because it was merely one man's opinion. That man just happens to have a B.A. in Philosophy, Physics and Mathematics from Cornell, a M.S. in Physics from Purdue, and a Ph.D in Mathematics from Columbia. So I do not take his words lightly, but I also do not blindly accept them.

His words mean nothing here if his words are merely expositionary. If they don't say anything relevant, they aren't relevant. You're making an appeal to authority, something which cannot stand in any serious academic forum.

And by " living beings created themselves," he is discussing abiogenesis and the natural evolution of life.

I will admit, evolutionists have no idea how life started, in the sense of going from "non-living to living". Evolution does not attempt to tackle the "origin of life", but rather the "origin of species". (Read as, why there's more than one type of life.) Why life started at all is a mystery.

Hence why it is at the end and not a supporting quote in my actual content. However, it is worth noting that she had a doctorate in philosophy from Radcliffe College. She wrote extensively on the philosophy of science and biology.

Ah, well in future posts the exposition is not necessary. It makes people less likely to read, and thus respond to, your post. I don't mean this in any rude way, but no one cares who shares your opinion. We can all point to people who share our opinion. That's great for us, but irrelevant to everyone else.

Same story as above, but let's examine her credentials and major contributions to science:
https://en.wikipedia.org...

And again, unnecessary.