New Questions--moral perspective

My dear, Jesus said that you're blessed if they say all kind of evil for His sake! Not for Moses' sake, not for the sake of a particular theory.I'm christian and not only by faith. I'm also convinced by the detailed stories of the new testament and the obedience of the gospel tellers until death. And last but not least I had wonderful religious experiences (I would say 'contact') with God. What I want to say with this, is that evidences can sustain significantly your faith. I have more than faith alone, about subjects/things I believe in.I never had this kind of reaction on one post overhere. I understand why Jesus didn't like the religous scene in His time. If He would come in our days, He would be crossed again. It's not about dogma's servant, it's about kinship.

---

Back to topic. Evolution is a theory, yes. It can't be proven, but there is a pile of evidences that evolution occured in some cases. There is nothing wrong with the concept itself.Personally, I can't explain the distribution of olfactory genes without evolution of man/chimp from the same ancestor (like I told). That's only a small step in regard to whole picture of biological life (but it's a phenomenon not explained by creationism until now).I'm uncertain about the explaining features of current evolution theory (with natural selection and mutations) in regard to this whole picture. Isn't the role of natural selection overestimated? And the driving force of mutations? That are several reasons why I'm a degenerationist. Your definition of science is flawed. What about theology (philosophy)? Maybe you need to read something of Duns Scotus for example (who's definition is derived from the Analytica posteriora).

A couple of comments on your post...

quote:

---

Evolution is a theory, yes. It can't be proven, but there is a pile of evidences that evolution occured in some cases.

---

In "some cases"?Do you mean to imply that in some other cases, evolution doesn't apply to the origin of species?If so, can you please give some examples of where evolution hasn't applied, and what your evidence is?

quote:

---

That are several reasons why I'm a degenerationist.

---

"degenerationist: a believer in the theory of degeneration, or hereditary degradation of type; as, the degenerationists hold that savagery is the result of degeneration from a superior state."What, exactly, does "hereditary degredation of type" mean?What is a "type" anyway? That's not a term used in Biology that I'm aware of.Neither are the terms "savagery" or "superior" used in reference to behavior in Biology. Those words are heavily subjective and value-laden.It seems to me that "degenerationism" is a purely philosophical stance and is not a valid comparison at all to the Theory of Evolution, a scientific theory.

In regards to "evolution is as proven as any other theory," you are wrong. Sorry, but no amount of arguing, essay-writing, quoting "famous scientists," field research, or laboratory observations are going to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that evolution is more than just another "what-if" of science.Also, schrafinator, the sites you quoted are extremely bias and their essays are not supported by scientific observation.Secondly, crashfrog, you "peer-reviewed" magazines are equally bias. The mere fact that they are mainstream magazines based on scientific research does not exclude the fact that they exclude any form of research that conflicts with evolutionary theory. Did you know that the majority (meaning more than half) of all product-dates taken by radiometric dating are thrown out because they conflict with the geologic timescale of evolution? Did you also know that the ceolocanth (as well as other lobe-finned fish) were once the "index-fossil" of the 350-400 myo devonian layer in the geologic column, until a few years ago when the ceolocanth was discovered still alive. Rather than taking the scientific method of analyzing their findings (skepticism of their own theory by means of questioning the validity of the geologic timescale) they took the bias viewpoint of assuming that the ceolocanth had survived for 400 million years.Thirdly, Saviourmachine, please direct your criticism toward the pertinent subject. Thank you for paying attention, but remain to the relevant topic, please.Thanks.Furthermore, look up the meaning of the term "Bias" for me. First of all, mainstream western science teaches that, in order to maintain empirical standing on controversial data, one must be drawn to UNbias reasoning and open questioning of all topics and evidences.That goes for MUCH more than just the evolution aspect. Nevertheless, you need to understand that the arguments you are trying to bombard me with are not rational, scientifically-prove (as in, they do not provide empirical evidence for common ancestry), nor are they in any way openminded or unbias, and therefore the responses i'm getting here are in no way similar to the types of responses I would get if I were to confront a science educator with a degree from an acreditted university in a similar field. And I would know: I have confronted many graduates with post-graduate degrees in sience and biology concentratiosn on the same issue of evolution as it pertains to chemistry AND biology and the true scientists out there who remain humble with integrity and unbias standpionts know how to talk about the subject with agendas OTHER THAN just trying to "Shoot down" the theory of creationism.With that said, this post is a waste of time. This will be my LAST post because I feel honestly that I am not dealing with open-minded SCIENTISTS, but rather with tunnel-vision neo-darwinists who have nothing better to do than throw away any unbiased opinions and prepare for a day of "let's see how many creationists I can insult or 'shoot down' today."Sorry if this upsets you, but it is truly a waste of both mine and your time to just continue with this back-and-forth nonsense. If you would like to continue in a TRUE debate, contact me when you think you're ready. (I do not doubt that you are ready intellectually, just not morally or open-mindedly yet).That is all,Sincerely,
Servant

Whew, good thing. I was about to respond to your mish-mash of half-truths, lies, insults, and flat-out errors with well-reasoned, well-supported arguments delivered in the height of civility.But now I'm glad I don't have to, because that would have been a lot of work. I guess it's a lot easier for you to cut and run before your arguements are torn to ribbons, right? No shit.

quote:

---

In regards to "evolution is as proven as any other theory," you are wrong. Sorry, but no amount of arguing, essay-writing, quoting "famous scientists," field research, or laboratory observations are going to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that evolution is more than just another "what-if" of science.

---

This is not directed at Saviourmachine (Mammuthus meant Servant...can't tell these guys apart ) in particular but this part of the post struck me as a pretty good summary of the fundamental lack of understanding of science exhibited by creationists. On the one hand saviormachine says "no amount of...field research or laboratory research are going to prove beyond any reasonable doubt..." yet creationism should be accepted as supported (not taking into account that there is no testable or falsiable hypothesis to begin with) because there is NO field research or laboratory research that supports it? One should take the "theory" that explains nothing over one that explains the observed biodiversity on the planet and is supported by mountains of evidence from multiple disciplines? In addition, that saviourmachine uses the word "prove" also demonstrates that he does not understand that all science, be it the theory of gravity or the theory of evolution is tentative. Nobody "proves" in science. The best theory is the one that survives the constant scrutiny of methodological naturalism. Evolution is one of the most robust theories in science because lab and field research constantly supports it. If data comes along that directly contradicts the theory, the theory will have to be revised or discarded. So far it has not but there is constant scrutiny by thousands of scientists to see if it holds up. Creationists certainly do not scrutinize their beliefs...they assume they are correct a priori and demand that you accept it.[This message has been edited a total of 12 times and then redacted from !Kung and other click languages to prove Queztal was wrong and I was right 03-08-2004][This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 03-09-2004]

There's an "oops" here, O Extinct One. "servant" not "savior" wrote the, err, post to which you were responding. Savior seems to have more of a head on his/her shoulders than Servant does. [This message has been edited a total of 11 times and then redacted from Sanskrit to make it completely incomprehensible by Quetzal, 03-08-2004]

quote:

---

In regards to "evolution is as proven as any other theory," you are wrong. Sorry, but no amount of arguing, essay-writing, quoting "famous scientists," field research, or laboratory observations are going to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that evolution is more than just another "what-if" of science.

---

So, in other words, you are completely closed to any evidence which contradicts what you have already decided you want to believe.Why is it that you treat the Bible as a science textbook, and is your faith so weak that real science will destroy it?You have only made proclamations of your personal opinion, unsupported by any facts or evidence, regarding the Theory of Evolution. Sorry, but "Evolution isn't true because I say so" is not a compelling argument.I have tried to engage you in discussing specifics and evidence, but you seem to want to avoid that. You have even implied that providing evidence and doing research is uneccessary to the debate!?I wonder if you know how very run-of-the-mill your tactics are? The Creationist arguments haven't changed for at least 50 years, and their unwillingness to discuss the details has also prevailed.

quote:

---

Also, schrafinator, the sites you quoted are extremely bias and their essays are not supported by scientific observation.

---

Really? Which sites, specifically are you talking about?And please explain, in detail, how they are biased?Remember, all bias is not bad. Bias in favor of the evidence is useful, scientific bias.

quote:

---

Secondly, crashfrog, you "peer-reviewed" magazines are equally bias. The mere fact that they are mainstream magazines based on scientific research does not exclude the fact that they exclude any form of research that conflicts with evolutionary theory.

---

First of all, they are not "magazines", and they are not "based on" scientific research.Professional scientific journals are the medium through which scientists share their research with each other and the world.Journal articles are the research!How is it that you have studied the ToE and science "hard", and you do not know this?Secondly, I assume you would never follow the advice of any medical doctors or government health agencies, am I correct?If you disbelieve all scientific journals, then you obviously don't use any modern medical, health or nutrition information, because the research that makes it into the journals is what doctors and medical experts use to develop treatments and cure disease.

quote:

---

Did you know that the majority (meaning more than half) of all product-dates taken by radiometric dating are thrown out because they conflict with the geologic timescale of evolution?

---

Unsupported (dubious) assertion.Please list your source.You might want to read this excellent article entitled "Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective":Radiometric Dating

quote:

---

Did you also know that the ceolocanth (as well as other lobe-finned fish) were once the "index-fossil" of the 350-400 myo devonian layer in the geologic column, until a few years ago when the ceolocanth was discovered still alive.

---

Incorrect. Your sources have lied to you.From:CB930.1: Coelacanth: A living fossil"The modern coelacanth is Latimeria chalumnae, in the family Latimeriidae. Fossil coelacanths are in other families, mostly Coelacanthidae, and are significantly different in that they are smaller and lack certain internal structures. Latimera has no fossil record, so it cannot be a "living fossil."Even if the modern coelacanth and fossil coelacanths were the same, it would not be a serious problem for evolution. The theory of evolution does not say that organisms must evolve. In an unchanging environment, natural selection would tend to keep things largely unchanged morphologically."

quote:

---

Rather than taking the scientific method of analyzing their findings (skepticism of their own theory by means of questioning the validity of the geologic timescale) they took the bias viewpoint of assuming that the ceolocanth had survived for 400 million years.

---

Like I said, your sources have blatantly lied to you. Are you this gullible in the rest of your life?

quote:

---

Furthermore, look up the meaning of the term "Bias" for me.

---

There's all sorts of biases; confimation bias, wishful thinking, communal reinforcement, experimenter bias, etc. Being biased is part of being human. However, it's a great thing that we have the scientific method to eliminate much of the biases we humans are prone to and leave us mainly with a bias in favor of the evidence. Peer-review also does this, as others replicate our observations and our experiments to see if they get the same results.Much of this is explained in the essay on science I linked you to, as well as here, another essay regarding controlled experiments:control group study - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

quote:

---

First of all, mainstream western science teaches that, in order to maintain empirical standing on controversial data, one must be drawn to UNbias reasoning and open questioning of all topics and evidences.

---

...as long as the reasoning and questioning are based upon sound science and logic, not religious dogma.

quote:

---

That goes for MUCH more than just the evolution aspect. Nevertheless, you need to understand that the arguments you are trying to bombard me with are not rational, scientifically-prove (as in, they do not provide empirical evidence for common ancestry), nor are they in any way openminded or unbias, and therefore the responses i'm getting here are in no way similar to the types of responses I would get if I were to confront a science educator with a degree from an acreditted university in a similar field.

---

Yes, you keep saying things like this, but you have not explained how our arguments are lacking.Be specific.

quote:

---

And I would know: I have confronted many graduates with post-graduate degrees in sience and biology concentratiosn on the same issue of evolution as it pertains to chemistry AND biology and the true scientists out there who remain humble with integrity and unbias standpionts know how to talk about the subject with agendas OTHER THAN just trying to "Shoot down" the theory of creationism.

---

Look, why is it so strange that we would expect you to back up your assertions?That's what science is all about.Oh, and exactly which Theory of Creation are you talking about?Be specific.

quote:

---

With that said, this post is a waste of time. This will be my LAST post because I feel honestly that I am not dealing with open-minded SCIENTISTS, but rather with tunnel-vision neo-darwinists who have nothing better to do than throw away any unbiased opinions and prepare for a day of "let's see how many creationists I can insult or 'shoot down' today."

---

Um, where has anyone insulted you?All we have tried to do is engage you in a scientific discussion, and you refuse.You have ignored most of my specific questions to you, and this is very telling and very typical.

quote:

---

Sorry if this upsets you, but it is truly a waste of both mine and your time to just continue with this back-and-forth nonsense.

---

LOL! I'm not upset in the least! Well, I am a bit disappointed that yet another Creationist has cut and run before the debate had really gotten started because they couldn't take the scrutiny of their claims.

quote:

---

If you would like to continue in a TRUE debate,

---

You mean the kind of "debate" where you don't respond to most of my questions, keep repeating the same unsupported assertions, and then run off when those tactics don't work?LOL!

quote:

---

contact me when you think you're ready. (I do not doubt that you are ready intellectually, just not morally or open-mindedly yet).

---

Nice insult as a parting shot.I'm certainly ready, man. Why don't you finish what you've started here by replying to the rest of my posts?

---

"Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge."

quote:

---

This will be my LAST post because I feel honestly that I am not dealing with open-minded SCIENTISTS, but rather with tunnel-vision neo-darwinists who have nothing better to do than throw away any unbiased opinions and prepare for a day of "let's see how many creationists I can insult or 'shoot down' today."

---

Well, this is certainly repetitive. How many creationists have we seen lately that post a whole lot of drivel and then leave because no one will believe them? Who are the one's still around to answer any questions Servant may have? Evolutionists? Who is leaving, whining like a little baby? Servant. Who is being called closed minded? Evolutionists. I wonder what passes for open minded in his world, a person who thinks Genesis two is more accurate than Genesis one? I especially love the fact that his only evidence against evolution (none supporting creation) are outright distortions and lies. Open minded indeed.[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 03-09-2004][This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 03-09-2004]

quote:

---

Nevertheless, you need to understand that the arguments you are trying to bombard me with are not rational, scientifically-prove (as in, they do not provide empirical evidence for common ancestry), nor are they in any way openminded or unbias, and therefore the responses i'm getting here are in no way similar to the types of responses I would get if I were to confront a science educator with a degree from an acreditted university in a similar field. And I would know: I have confronted many graduates with post-graduate degrees in sience and biology concentratiosn on the same issue of evolution as it pertains to chemistry AND biology and the true scientists out there who remain humble with integrity and unbias standpionts know how to talk about the subject with agendas OTHER THAN just trying to "Shoot down" the theory of creationism.

---

Hello Servant. As a high school biology/earth science teacher with degrees in science education and environmental science/biology, I would like to invite you to start a new thread in the education forum with your questions and opinions that I can respond to as an educator. It seems that you have a busy schedule and don't have enough time to respond to all of the posters that respond to you. I am busy also, so, if you want, we could start the thread and ask others not to ask us specific questions that we would need to spend time responding to. Others can throw stuff in, but we don't have to listen if we don't want to. What do you say? I'll be waiting for your reply. Time for class.

That's not what I'm saying. I want to say that there are some cases with evolution observed. There are a lot of scenarios in which evolution doesn't occur. If you put a huge amount of Drosophila under water, they don't get gills (although insect wings maybe developed from gills). Of course, I'm not pretty sure about this particular example, but it's obvious that if natural selection is too rigid, the specie will die and not adapt. Hi, you're right. It's not properly defined here, but in the topic 'Evolution & Comlexity' I explained something about what I mean with that. It has nothing to do with the subjectivity and value-ladenness you refer to. But still it's strange that I always get responses to that from evolutionists, because an degenerationist is just another evolutionist focusing on the 'dark' aspect of the theory.

Well, your right on both counts. The example is very poor indeed and if the environment changes too drastically and too rapidly then the species will not survive.So?

Oh, nothing. It was just to sustain the sentence that 'evolution does occur in some cases'.

Hi Saviour. I agree with most of what you write, but I think degenerationism vs neodarwinism would make a fascinating topic to explore. Obviously we can't do it in this thread. Would you be willing to open a new thread in either Evolution or Misc Topics to expand on why you consider this approach more likely than current theory? I'd like to hear your views on the subject. BTW: I'm not "up" on degenerationism - I had thought it was more a social/cultural theory than biological - so if you choose to, please start with a precis of what it is in relation to biology. Looking forward to it.edited to fix grammar. Duh oh.[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 03-10-2004]