Your reason for accepting evolution

Given that the conclusions many creationists & IDologists often reach are so bedded in their particular world view and starting presuppositions, bedded to such a degree that evidence is ignored that contradicts it, it is hardly surprising that the conclusions would be different from those who approach evidence with an open and inquiring mind, one encumbered with a minimum of presuppositions. Looked at dispassionately and without reference to any one of the many different initial positions possible in relation to all the world views and starting presuppositions (for there are thousands if not millions), there are two possible initial positions that can be taken on what the evidence supports:

1. Truth
2. Falsehood

If we assume (presuppose) that the evidence is true, then we can ask what the evidence means. We can test our thoughts on the meaning with other evidence to see if it is consistent. We can form hypothesis based on the evidence, make predictions for new discoveries and test those hypothesis against the results to see if the concepts can be falsified. We can then use evidence to find the truth of reality, readily discarding concepts that prove to be false.If we assume (presuppose) that the evidence is false, then we can make no use of it. Thus if, at any time in our evaluations, we come to a conclusion that the evidence is or must be false rather than our evaluations of the meaning of the evidence, then no conclusions can be reached that have any logical or rational meaning. If the conclusions are based on falsehoods then the conclusions are false.The question then of what world view (of the thousands or millions) is better supported by the evidence then comes down to the one with the least denial of evidence that contradicts it. The world view that makes the minimal conclusions of evidence being in error for the world view to be consistent. The denial of evidence that contradicts it. Not just the evidence of extreme age of the earth, of the much greater age of the universe, or the total absence of any evidence for a worldwide flood of any kind, for these are not necessary to "special creation" per se, but the evidence that shows common ancestry between all living things, and the nested hierarchy of life at every level of detail. The genetic and the fossil (natural history) evidence that are each independently consistent with the nested hierarchy of all life. This of course is a typical creationist false dichotomy. Every religion on earth has a creation myth, with many irreconcilable differences between them, and any one of them can be considered to be true and tested against the evidence. Proving any one of them false does not automatically make evolution a more valid option, just as proving evolution wrong does not mean that any specific one of those mythological beliefs is true. Many such beliefs have already been discarded as falsified, but this does not mean that any one view remaining is necessarily true.What makes evolution the most valid option is testing it against the evidence and seeing if it explains the evidence with a minimum of denial of contradictory evidence compared to all the other concepts. What makes evolution a very likely valid option is that there is no known evidence found to date that contradict the concept, in spite of many tests and an ever increasing body of evidence, both from experimentation and from discovery of fossils and other evidence of the natural history of life on earth over the last 3.5 billion years.. No more so than the starting point of "I don't believe in the possibility of the pantheon of Greek Gods" that then leaves any other world view as a more plausible option, for denial is not an explanation, a conclusion or evidence for one. It is also entirely possible for one to believe in a transcendent creator that made things so that life would begin and evolve on earth without any contradiction between belief and science in general and evolution in specific. The deist point of view for instance.What makes any world view (of the thousands or millions) the "most plausible option" is the minimum of contradictory evidence. Nothing can be experimentally proven to be true, but concepts can be proven false. Concepts like a young earth, an earth at the center of the universe about which the sun and everything else orbits, a world wide flood, and the pantheon of Greek Gods, which have all been proven false (there is no god of thunder for example). Again, this is the false dichotomy. The evidence - together with the minimal presupposition that the evidence is true - leads to the conclusion that the option (among those many that are possible), that has a minimum of contradictory evidence is the one most likely to be a true reflection of reality.Denial of contradictory evidence is not an alternate explanation, it is not faith, it is delusion: One presupposition -- that the evidence is true -- does away with delusion. The more presuppositions one starts with the greater the likelihood of conflicts with contrary evidence. Both can be wrong: all it takes is contradictory evidence.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

When you start a thread, it is polite to reply to responses. Here it looks like you don't have anything to say in response, and try to run off to other threads to disguise some lack of ability, evidence and\or argument. For instance your Message 162 is more applicable to this thread than the one you posted on, so I will make a more complete response here. This was your (entire) post: The points: Truth is not a matter of belief, but of reality and what you can demonstrate to be true with logic and evidence and rational conclusions, conclusions that are tested for validity.If we don't do this then any fantasy you can name can be regarded as true no matter how fantastic it is, and particularly in spite of evidence that shows it is false. This is what I was talking about in Message 15, where I said (among other things):

quote:

---

... there are two possible initial positions that can be taken on what the evidence supports:

1. Truth
2. Falsehood

If we assume (presuppose) that the evidence is true, then we can ask what the evidence means. We can test our thoughts on the meaning with other evidence to see if it is consistent. ...

​

If we assume (presuppose) that the evidence is false, then we can make no use of it.

---

Let me further and point out that if we assume that some evidence is true and other evidence is false, which would appear to be a third alternative, that the results are the same as assuming that it is all false. Why is this? It is because evidence can be found to support any number of totally contradictory concepts, and as long as you are allowed to proclaim that any evidence that contradicts the concept is false, then you cannot determine what the truth is and you end up with the same end result:

quote:

---

Thus if, at any time in our evaluations, we come to a conclusion that the evidence is or must be false rather than our evaluations of the meaning of the evidence, then no conclusions can be reached that have any logical or rational meaning. If the conclusions are based on falsehoods then the conclusions are false.

---

For how can you decide between two contradictory concepts when each says different evidence is false? For instance compare the claims of YEC fundamentalist christians with those of OEC fundamentalist hindus. One group (YEC fundy christians) says that any evidence that shows the earth is old is false beecause they believe the earth is only 6,000 years (or 10,000 or 12,000 or whatever) years old. The other group (OEC fundy hindus) say that any evidence that shows the earth is young is false because they believe the earth is hundreds of billions of years old.By allowing some evidence to be false it is possible to argue that the earth is flat and that all evidence to the contrary is false.Claiming that evidence is false when it contradicts a belief is not an alternative explanation, because it denies the evidence instead of explains it. There are no "both sides" as far as world views go, rather there are as many world views as there are people. The only people who talk about "both sides" are those that have been {brainwashed\hoodwinked\fooled} by the IDologist propaganda made for gullible people. For instance we can talk about "both side" of the design controversy - without even touching on the reality of evolution.However there are two sides to the issue of veracity: truth and falsehood. Science looks for truth with the assumption that all evidence is true to reality: feel free to take the other side. I think you wil find that your claim that people don't understand the creation\ID argument is false: but you can test this by asking.The claim that "most creationists/ID proponents were evolutionists before" - another typical creationist PRATT - is demonstrably false, because anyone who is confused about the meaning of evolution cannot by definition be an evolutionist, just confused. Thus whenever a creationist is shown to have no real understanding of evolution it is clear that they could never have been an evolutionist. The most typical stumbling block is what creationists regard as macroevolution versus what the science of evolution regards as macroevolution.I've seen many creationists argue that the definition of evolution, the theory of evolution, and the boundaries of the science of evolution are not what evolutionists say, thereby demonstrating that they were never evolutionists. Perhaps you would like to participate in such a discussion to see whether your claim to have been an evolutionist holds up to closer inspection:

• define "evolution"
• define "the theory of evolution"
• define the boundaries of the science of evolution

Let's see how you do. Nope. This really betrays a lack of understanding of the fundamental difference between science and faith. There is no religion involved in science. We were all brought up on the validity of science in determining reality from fantasy, and those elements of science that could be taught in school on the various sciences within the constraints of time, school programs, and the knowledge and ability of the teachers and schools to present the truth. This does not mean that people that want to wallow in ignorance were forced to learn. Actually there are many things that have in the course of studying evolution been found to be "dissenting evidence" for certain views, such as Lamarkism, various hoaxes, "Ontology Recapitulates Philology" and the like. All concepts that have been falsified by science in the course of determining the truth of reality. This is the way science operates, as opposed to faith or religions. Of course, no science claims that what it regards as plausible is necessarily true, whether it is evolution or physics or chemistry or astronomy or ...But for the sake of discussion let's start with one: any one of your choice, but preferably the one that you think is the best argument you can make. Present one part of evolution that is not supported by evidence and then why you think you have a more plausible explanation.Enjoy

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This simplistic view is true of all belief systems, it is particularly true of all the creationist nonsense that gets published: assume your conclusion, observe a fact and make up a story to make the fact fit the assumption.It is not true of science in general and evolution in particular, though. Why? Because they work the other way around.The actual steps are:1. Observe the evidence, historical, fossil and present day.
2. Make a hypothesis that explains the facts -- all the facts.
3. Make a prediction based on the hypothesis that will test it with further evidence.
4. Look for the further evidence to see if the result validates the hypothesis or shows it to be wrong.The facts can be summarized fairly simply: all life is constantly changing. There is no species where change does not occur from one generation to another, there is no historical evidence that does not show change in species over time, there is no fossil record that shows the same form in different places and times.The hypothesis is that this constant change is due to change in hereditary traits within a population from generation to generation, that this is caused by changes at the genetic level (mutations) and differential selection of individuals by natural and sexual selection such that some have higher survival and reproductive success than others.One prediction is that when ecological conditions change that there will be a shift in the population to match the new conditions or species survival will be threatened.Another prediction is that when additional fossils are found that they will fit in to the existing pattern of fossils, and that if you concentrate effort where there are gaps in the record by looking in appropriate strata (for the time period and ecology predicted by each side of the gap) that you will find intermediate forms.Both these predictions have come to pass many many times. The Galapagos Finches are an example of the first and Tiktaalik rosea is an example of the second.The major difference between creationism and science in general and evolution in particular is that creationism only looks at the evidence that fits its ability to mold a story around it to make it fit, while science in general and evolution in particular look at all the evidence whether it fits or not ... and in most particular emphasis they are looking for evidence that does not fit. Somebody has been telling you falsehoods. Absolutely false. Whether it still lives or not (and all living species are different from all prehistoric species, Coelacanth is an order btw as opposed to a species) it still show transitional (intermediate development) form:http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2007/07/070731152131.htm

quote:

---

A 400 million-year-old fossil of a coelacanth fin, the first finding of its kind, fills a shrinking evolutionary gap between fins and limbs. University of Chicago scientists describe the finding in the July/August 2007 issue of Evolution & Development.

---

Tiktaalik rosea is another transitional (intermediate) fossil. More keep being found. Because evolution works on living organisms.Your precepts are wrong because you are NOT talking about evolution as used by scientists but argument created by creationists that don't understand or choose to misrepresent evolution.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : ubb/

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

My reason for accepting evolution, is that there is NO evidence yet found that invalidates it. Key word "virtually" -- for this is my point, that even in species that appear to be the same over extensive periods of time there is still change from generation to generation. This is evidence for evolution, whether the pace is slow and plodding or fast and furious, for the degree of change from generation to generation is nowhere specified nor is any great change required.The effect of evolution on different populations depends on the mutations (the different hereditary traits available) in the population at the various times, the selection processes operating on those mutations, and the opportunities for different ecologies to cause different selection results. Clams for instance being very well suited to life on a shallow sea floor, having abundant amounts of shallow sea floor available, have no pressing need to change: there is plenty of opportunity to survive and breed more clams. But this too is evidence for evolution. The great preponderance of fossil evidence showing the vast majority of life forms to be extinct shows that natural selection plays no favorites. If conditions change and a species does not have the necessary traits to survive then selection eliminates it individual by individual until the species is extinct. That most species did not have traits to survive a meteor blast 65 million years ago is no great surprise. Yet every generation in every species is different. Mutations produce differences, those differences result in individuals with different abilities to survive and reproduce, and that results in changes in the hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.The concept of "information" is irrelevant OR there is "increasing" information. Because your denial does not make the evidence go away. Every species known to man alive today, in the historical record and in the fossil record shows change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. Evolution was quickly accepted because the basic explanation fit the facts, the evidence that was available at the time. Since then the addition of new evidence has not changed that basic explanation, every intermediate found just makes it that much more sure, and in a very real sense every single fossil found is an intermediate: that makes millions of them. When genetics was discovered there was a chance to test evolution most thoroughly by seeing how well genetic data matched that from what was known from fossil evidence and comparative anatomy. The result was astonishing agreement. False. Now you can either show I am wrong by providing evidence of your assertion, or you can admit that it was just a groundless assertion. This is really a rather pathetic rant, virtually begging for persecution, nor does it address the issues at all. Repeating your falsehoods does not make them any more true than they were before. Let me do this again:False. Now you can either show I am wrong by providing evidence of your assertion, or you can admit that it was just a groundless assertion. And yet it is evidence of evolution -- the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. We do see it every day, for it is universal to all life forms known.That creationists agree with it is inconsequential, as they can agree that the earth orbits the sun and that 1+1=2. The real issue is that this is what the evidence shows -- evolution. Which does not refute the intermediate form of Tiktaalik rosea nor of the common ancestor of birds with dinosaurs having teeth. You forget: the existence, the form, the place and the prehistoric environment were predicted by evolution, then the prediction was tested by investigation, investigation which validated the prediction. The prediction was based on assuming evolution to be valid then deducing what the result would be. The very real problem for you is: if evolution is NOT true, then why did the prediction materialize? Increased food supply and decreased predators would be a real inducement to augment any little ability to take advantage of it. Absolutely false conclusion. Natural selection would not get rid of something that -- no matter how ungainly it is on land -- is good enough at getting around on land that it can survive and breed. Nope. You can actually look at the evidence. What limits are those and where are they imposed? Be specific. Note that there is no part of the basic structure of DNA as found in humans, for example, that is different from the basic structure of DNA found in bacteria. They are made from the same amino acids, with the same helical structure. What you think is totally irrelevant. Nature is neither impressed nor restricted by what you think.And yet the facts show that you indeed either "don't understand or choose to misrepresent evolution" -- the evidence of your posts clearly shows that your arguments are not based on valid representations of evolution.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Welcome to the fray jsaunders327 type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes: or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:

---

quotes are easy

---

also check out (help) links on formating questions when in the reply window. This thread is about accepting evolution rather than about problems with dating methods. If you really want to discuss dating methods you can either post on one of the existing threads, like Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III), or start a new thread. If you participate on an existing thread you will be expected to (1) stay on the thread topic (ie correlations between dating methods discussed on Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III)) and (2) substantiate you claims with actual evidence, siting your sources.Go to Proposed New Topics to post new topics. There are also threads about geology and about the flood -- look around and see one that fits you. You can also either find an existing thread of fossil formation or start one. Logically false. It can be (is) a fact, and it can be (is) a scientific conclusion based on evaluation of all the facts, and not be either a belief nor supernatural revelation. It can also be (is) a theory that is not a belief, but a concept being tested for validity, one that can make predictions that can be tested against facts, one that can be falsified. Not necessarily, but you would have to be able to understand the basic principles of science.What bluescat48 was pointing out is that some 4000 years ago people IN GENERAL did not understand the laws of physics. It's basic history. Irrelevant, as this is (a) long after the creation story was written, and (b) it is the appeal to authority logical fallacy. And seeing as he died before evolution theory was developed he didn't have the opportunity to make that decision eh? He also did not know about relativity or radiation.On the other side of the coin, are you aware the Leonardo Da Vinci figured out that a single world wide flood was a falsehood?http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/vinci.html

quote:

---

How did those shells come to lie at the tops of mountains? Leonardo's answer was remarkably close to the modern one: fossils were once-living organisms that had been buried at a time before the mountains were raised: "it must be presumed that in those places there were sea coasts, where all the shells were thrown up, broken, and divided. . ." Where there is now land, there was once ocean. It was possible, Leonardo thought, that some fossils were buried by floods -- this idea probably came from his observations of the floods of the Arno River and other rivers of north Italy -- but these floods had been repeated, local catastrophes, not a single Great Flood. To Leonardo da Vinci, as to modern paleontologists, fossils indicated the history of the Earth, which extends far beyond human records. As Leonardo himself wrote:

​

Since things are much more ancient than letters, it is no marvel if, in our day, no records exist of these seas having covered so many countries. . . But sufficient for us is the testimony of things created in the salt waters, and found again in high mountains far from the seas.

---

Plus we also have Pierre Simon de Laplace's well known quote:Answers - The Most Trusted Place for Answering Life's Questions

quote:

---

He himself proved the mechanical stability of the solar system within Newtonian mechanics, thereby removing the need for any regulation by divine intervention. It is this that occasioned his celebrated remark to Napoleon about God: ”Je n'ai pas besoin de cette hypothse’: I have no need of that hypothesis.

---

All of which doesn't prove evolution (or any scientific point) of course, it just shows that your argument is logically bad, to be kind. And yet, curiously, the operation of the universe is totally independent of what you think and understand, it is singularly unimpressed by what seems to you a valid arguement.Let us return to the topic -- what reasons are there for accepting evolution?One would be if you could observe the process -- the change in hereditary traits from generation to generation -- in action. You can. You can look at any population of individuals within a species and track changes from generation to generation.Another would be if you did NOT observe any other process, such as spontaneous generation, in action. You don't.A third would be if the fossil evidence supported evolution. It does.A fourth would be if the fossil evidence does not contradict evolution. It doesn't.A fifth would be if the genetic evidence supports evolution AND matches the fossil evidence. It does.A sixth would be if the genetic evidence does not contradict evolution OR the fossil evidence. It doesn't.Creationism does not stand up to those tests, therefore one can only assume creationism is true if one assumes that evidence is false. The problem with this approach is that you can use this to assume any thesis you want, by rejecting whatever evidence invalidates it.It's not about belief, it is about testing concepts against the facts and finding which ones are valid.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : last line

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.