evolution discussion with faith

Well, if the scientific rigor of the theory isn't what you're basing your decision on, I guess I really don't have anything to talk about you with. You're certainly not interested in my thoughts on the Bible, I suspect.Sort of funny, though, that you're a former evolutionist and I'm a recovering creationist. A frightful symmetry.

What I'd really like is for some of those here who do know science to stop arguing with me, try to think along with me, and try their best to supply SUPPORT for the creationist ideas, think through what would have to be the case if such and such were true, not giving up at the first contrary thought that occurs to them, either, or even the tenth, always jumping on the That Can't Work answer.This message has been edited by Faith, 01-11-2006 10:54 PM

There is no way that the Creationist ideas can ever be supported. That's been true for at least the last 200 years. The evidence against the Biblical Creationist position is absolutely overwhelming. There is no way the Biblical Creationist position can be supported without total willfull ignorance.

I'd like to complain about jar's unfriendly post. It is completely unnecessary, just his unsupported opinion, just a jab and nothing else. This thread has gone on in a friendly way for the most part, and his attitude is a sour note. Two other unfriendly impertinent posts were nipped in the bud. This one should also be.This message has been edited by Faith, 01-11-2006 11:08 PM

No offense, but that's what it means to think along with someone in the sciences. Somebody has an idea, and everybody around them comes up with the reasons that it can't possibly be that way. It's a very discouraging procedure until you get used to it, but the result is that only the really good ideas see the light of day.The sort of rigor in the sciences can really be off-putting for those who aren't prepared for it. And the scientific community doesn't promote the idea of doing it tactfully. What matters is advancing knowledge, not people's feelings. I appreciate that, when you voice these ideas, it feels like everybody's immediately leaping to attack them. And they are. But honestly, you should feel honored that, unlike most creationists, you give the science-minded folks here something to grapple with scientifically. Most of the time, creationist thinking is so scientifically without merit that it's not worth doing anything but dismissing with a laugh.You're worth refuting. Hopefully, paradoxially, that's something you can take a little bit of pride in.

I've done that part. It really can't be done with young earth creationism.I know you like to challenge the dates. Any particular date has some margin of error, and for some datings the margin might be large. But the evidence for an old earth and old life is rock solid.If you could accept some kind of old earth creationism, then it would be easier to find support.

It's not unfriendly Faith. It's fact. The Biblical Creationist position is simply wrong and cannot be supported.The current theories may well be wrong. Time will continue to bring new knowledge and discoveries. But regardless, what will replace the current theories will not be Biblical Creationism. It has been falsified, is dead, and will never return.This message has been edited by jar, 01-11-2006 10:12 PM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Thanks, crash but I suspect your view of how worth it is to argue with me is not shared by many.Anyway, what you describe may be what happens among scientists, but on this board most of the creationists are not scientists, and to treat us as scientists or upbraid us for our goofs as some do, is just a recipe for frustration.

Saying it doesn't make it so. Moreover, it's uncalled for in context, and frankly, just plain weird here.

That's the price you pay if you want your positions to merit scientific interest.

Faith,According to the Noah flood story, there were at least doves and ravens on the Ark, maybe more "kinds" of birds as well. I have heard YEC'ers comment that the Ark had the basic kinds of animals...cat kind, dog kind, etc...Does that translate into a Dove Kind and a Raven Kind, as subsets of "Bird Kind"?There are currently over 300 species of Doves and just eight speices of Raven.~clpMINI

---

Nuggin: I would rather that cows pooped ice cream sandwiches

ToE does not operate from the presupposition that variation is open-ended. Rather it does not assume limits without evidence. So your objection here is that evolutionary theory does not accept assumptions made for the primary purpose of denying evolutionary theory.As for your comments on "genetic capacity" it appears that it is an ad hoc premise with no supporting evidence. It may be the most reasonable position IF you assume a YEC framework and your claims of ever-decreasing diversity but it is not a reasonable position. If we don't assume a YEC framework (against the evidence) we don't need to explain why the expected evidence is absent.For a start it is clear that the "original kinds" had no need for all this supposed capacity - so why would they be given it ? Moreover there is no sign of it in even the oldest DNA samples found. In a YEC chronology it has to survive ~2000 years leading up to the flood and then rapidly disappear leaving no identifiable trace. Not even in animals that YECs would say lived a relatively short time after the Flood (Mammoths).

Nobody knows. But it would make sense that there were way fewer kinds than there are considered to be species now.

The idea is that contrary to evolution all life is winding down from a previous much greater strength, under the effects of the Fall. There may be another genetic picture that explains what I'm trying to explain better, but that is what I am trying to account for. "It" has to survive? I don't understand what you are talking about. Then "rapidly disappear?" What has to disappear? If you are talking about this genetic capacity I'm postulating, there shouldn't be any evidence one way or another from that long ago. As I understand it the mammoth DNA isn't in the best of shape and hasn't been fully studied yet, so again, I have no idea what you are talking about.This message has been edited by Faith, 01-12-2006 10:45 AM

And so long as the idea that life is winding down is a religiously-motivated assumption it will not be scientific.This genetic capacity you speak of ought to be around at the Creation and has to still be around at the end of the Flood (because it is meant to explain away the fact that we do not see any genetic bottleneck attributable to the Flood - which accordign to you should only have got worse in the time since). That is ~2000 years in YEC chronology. Thus it has to survive for that period but almost completely disappear after a significantly shorter period of time.And while the mammoth DNA may be degraded it does not show any sign of the major variations you are proposing.