Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Has evolution been proven ?
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 61 of 141 (95987)
03-30-2004 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by CreationMan
03-30-2004 12:45 PM


Because He Says So
CreationMan,
Keeping an open mind means at times you may have to change it. I gather there's no chance of that as far as you're concerned.
That said, you're absolutely correct that the theory of evolution by natural selection can't be proven true. Data doesn't 'prove' anything. The notion of a scientific theory is that it's a framework for organizing data, generating testable hypotheses, and guiding future research. The vast majority of observations are illuminated by this framework: there is a comprehensible order to life on Earth, and the basis of the interrelations among life forms is common ancestry.
If evolution were a religious belief system, I wouldn't expect to see people from every conceivable philosophical and religious background who accept its validity. Check out posts from people on this very board and you'll find Christians, Muslims, Jews, agnostics, and atheists arguing in favor of Darwin's theory. It seems that creationism is the religious belief system, since its proponents are overwhelmingly religious fundamentalists.
Creationists should deal with the same evidence as evolutionists, but unfortunately they're in the habit of merely ignoring the evidence that doesn't fit their concept. And conspicuously absent from the debate is evidence to support the plausibility of creation ex nihilo of species or life forms.
I think it's safe to say you're oversimplifying the debate.
regards,
Esteban Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by CreationMan, posted 03-30-2004 12:45 PM CreationMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by CreationMan, posted 03-30-2004 2:38 PM MrHambre has replied

CreationMan
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 141 (96007)
03-30-2004 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by MrHambre
03-30-2004 1:39 PM


No Over Simplifying
MrHambre,
Keeping an open mind means at times you may have to change it. I gather there's no chance of that as far as you're concerned.
If that statement were true I would not be a Christian or a creationist. It was the fact that I kept an open mind that caused me to change the way I WAS to make me into who I AM.
That said, you're absolutely correct that the theory of evolution by natural selection can't be proven true. Data doesn't 'prove' anything. The notion of a scientific theory is that it's a framework for organizing data, generating testable hypotheses, and guiding future research. The vast majority of observations are illuminated by this framework: there is a comprehensible order to life on Earth, and the basis of the interrelations among life forms is common ancestry.
I agree up until the last statement.
...the basis of the interrelations among life forms is common ancestry.
That is your interpretation of the evidence, but I would interpret it NOT to be common ancestry, but common design.
If evolution were a religious belief system, I wouldn't expect to see people from every conceivable philosophical and religious background who accept its validity. Check out posts from people on this very board and you'll find Christians, Muslims, Jews, agnostics, and atheists arguing in favor of Darwin's theory. It seems that creationism is the religious belief system, since its proponents are overwhelmingly religious fundamentalists.
If you are right in stating this you must concede the existence of God, because everyone you mentioned (except for agnostics and atheists ) accept the existence of God. So if the majority of people accept evolution, thus making evolution true, does the majority of people accepting the existence of God make God true too? The key is not in how many people accept one view over another, but people interpret the evidence based on their belief. People who accept evolution accept it as a part of their belief system.
Creationists should deal with the same evidence as evolutionists, but unfortunately they're in the habit of merely ignoring the evidence that doesn't fit their concept. And conspicuously absent from the debate is evidence to support the plausibility of creation ex nihilo of species or life forms.
As already stated, the evidence is the same. We DO deal with the same evidence, we just look at it differently. You say the Grand Canyon ws layed down slowly over millions of years. We say it was layed down rapidly by water (they are sedimentary layers). Same evidence, different view.
I think it's safe to say you're oversimplifying the debate.
Nope, it really is this simple.
Best Regards,

"The Fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God'"
Creation Man

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by MrHambre, posted 03-30-2004 1:39 PM MrHambre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by MrHambre, posted 03-30-2004 3:42 PM CreationMan has replied
 Message 65 by Loudmouth, posted 03-30-2004 4:06 PM CreationMan has not replied
 Message 66 by JonF, posted 03-30-2004 6:46 PM CreationMan has not replied

MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 63 of 141 (96034)
03-30-2004 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by CreationMan
03-30-2004 2:38 PM


Good Luck In Court
quote:
That is your interpretation of the evidence, but I would interpret it NOT to be common ancestry, but common design.
Oh, I see. The genetic evidence we use to establish common ancestry is the exact same evidence that establishes paternity in court. Perhaps you'd tell the jury that your client's DNA is so similar to his alleged child's DNA not because he's the father, but because of 'common design.' That might work.
Incidentally, I didn't imply that evolution had been proven because a lot of people believe it. What I said was that it can't just be a religious belief, because people of every religion (or lack thereof) accept it on scientific terms. Plenty of people believe in God and accept evolution, so your accusation that evolution is based on people's philosophical predisposition against religious explanations is null and void.
regards,
Esteban Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by CreationMan, posted 03-30-2004 2:38 PM CreationMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by CreationMan, posted 03-31-2004 1:54 PM MrHambre has replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 64 of 141 (96041)
03-30-2004 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by CreationMan
03-30-2004 12:45 PM


Re: Reply
1) Evolution has not and cannot be proven true. Evolution is a philosophical/religous belief system about the past that is used to interpret scientific evidence.
Really? I think it would be fascinating to hear you expand on the facts that would lead one to believe that the scientific theory of evolution, in all its details, is a philosophical or metaphysical belief system. What part of sexual selection, or shared retrogenes, or say, biogeography is metaphysics? Since you obviously have such a depth of knowledge about evolution, I'd love for you to clarify these questions. Looking foward to your response.
2) Creation has not and cannot be proven true. Creationism is a religous belief system about the past that is used to interpret scientific evidence.
Yep, except I'd say it's more like a belief system that is used to fold, spindle, distort, or otherwise mutilate the evidence developed by science to fit a pre-conceived worldview.
Both Creationists and Evolutionists study the same evidence. We both study the same trees, rocks, earth and universe, but the reason we come to opposite conclusions is because we INTERPRET the evidence based on our belief system.
And the direct evidence in the trees, rocks, and living organisms for creation ex nihilo is what, exactly? Please be specific.
Evolutionists believe that single-celled organisms gave rise to multi-celled organisms and multi-celled organisms gave rise to invertabrates and invertabrates gave rise to vertabrates and vertabrates gave rise to ape-like creatures and ape-like creatures gave rise to man. And they interpret the evidence based on this presupposition.
Erm, no. It's not a presupposition. The evidence of both living and extinct organisms leads to the conclusion. Except for the bit about vertebrates giving rise to ape-like creatures and ultimately humans, since the latter two ARE vertebrates. And the fact that the lineage of vertebrates diverged from the stem metazoan lineage about the same time the invertebrates did so - that's pretty far down at the roots of multi-cellular life. Invertebrates (as we understand the term today) likely didn't "give rise to vertebrates" (note the spelling, btw). Be that as it may, the point is that this was a conclusion based on evidence uncovered over several centuries. It was not an interpretation of the evidence - the evidence led to the conclusion. Unlike creationism, where the conclusion is known and the evidence rejected or accepted on the strength of how closely it adheres to the pre-determined conclusion. As you yourself stated:
Now I belief the Bible to be true and interpret the evidence based on that.
Talk about projection.
Ultimately it comes down to faith. I beieve it takes less faith to believe in God and the Bible than it does to believe in evolution.
Again, no. It takes no faith at all to accept the ToE. It takes, perhaps, substantially more thought to understand all of its ramifications - although the folks that spend a lifetime becoming biblical scholars or theologians have probably expended as much. OTOH, I agree that all it takes is faith - without even the necessity of reflection - to reject the evidence of the senses in favor of an ancient myth which wasn't even intended for that purpose. Of course, that's not faith in God or even Christianity so much as it is unquestioning faith in a badly translated book whose original sources are lost to antiquity.
It's good that you are searching this stuff out. Keep an open mind, have some fun, and THINK a whole lot!!!
Now THAT I agree with wholeheartedly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by CreationMan, posted 03-30-2004 12:45 PM CreationMan has not replied

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 141 (96044)
03-30-2004 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by CreationMan
03-30-2004 2:38 PM


Re: No Over Simplifying
quote:
As already stated, the evidence is the same. We DO deal with the same evidence, we just look at it differently. You say the Grand Canyon ws layed down slowly over millions of years. We say it was layed down rapidly by water (they are sedimentary layers). Same evidence, different view.
This is simply not true. Scientists (evos, old earthers, etc.) look at ALL of the evidence and form theories that fit ALL of the evidence. YEC's filter out evidence if it leads to conclusions that go against their theology. This is the biggest difference, throwing out evidence BECAUSE of a religious faith. Scientists leave out personal, emotional, and religious bias. I take that back, scientists do have some bias. They are biased towards theories that can be tested and theories that fit ALL the data.
If you think YEC's have the same credibility, show us the testable theory of creation and how it is tested. Also show us how the YEC model fits all of the data, including such things as the sorting of fossils, ERV's, and pseudogenes to name a few.
The YEC model should also be able to explain what we call convergent evolution, or the production of similar mechanisms by separate means. One example would be the thylacine wolf. In this case, genetically, humans are more closely related to N. American wolves than the thylacine wolf is to the N. Amer. wolf. Why would this be? Common Designer/Common Design would require the thylacine wolf and the N. Amer. wolf to be more closely related than N. Amer. wolves and humans. This is what I mean by YEC models having to fit all of the data, instead of coming up with ad hoc hypotheses fit just for certain situations but in the end unable to explain the whole.
EDITED TO ADD: Not all interpretations are equal with respect to reality. The theories of electromagnetism and Zeus as sources for lightening were both based on evidence. However, electromagnetism won because it was based on ALL of the evidence and not on excluding evidence, which is what the Zeus theory would have required.
[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 03-30-2004]
[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 03-30-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by CreationMan, posted 03-30-2004 2:38 PM CreationMan has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 66 of 141 (96087)
03-30-2004 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by CreationMan
03-30-2004 2:38 PM


Re: No Over Simplifying
You say the Grand Canyon ws layed down slowly over millions of years. We say it was layed down rapidly by water (they are sedimentary layers). Same evidence, different view
Nope, as pointed out already, what you are doing is ignoring evidence.
Not all the layers in the Grand Canyon are sedimentary; there are many metamorphic and igneous layers. There are many plutons that obviously cooled slowly. There are igneous layers that were not deposited uinderwater.
From Strata of the Grand Canyon - Grand Staircase:
quote:
Rocks of the Vishnu complex originated as sediments and volcanic rocks laid down on the sea floor ... After burial, the sediments and volcanics were subjected to at least two seperate episodes of regional metamorphism ... The Vishnu complex was intruded by large quantities of magma before the overlying Bass Limestone was deposited. ... At least 20 plutons are known within the Vishnu. Some plutons are highly folded and foliated by metamorphic activity (Ruby Superunit), others less so (Phantom superunit), still others totally unfoliated (Surprise Canyon superunit). ... Other intrusive igneous structures within the Vishnu include dikes and sills ... The Unkar Group consists of the Bass Limestone (up to 330ft), the Hakatai Shale (up to 985ft), the Shinumo Quartzite (1328ft), the Dox Formation (3100ft), and the Cardenas Lava (~900ft)
And, of course, when asked about a detailed model of the depostion of the different layers, the trackways, the raindrop impressions, the dessication cracks, and so on ... the creationist disappears.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by CreationMan, posted 03-30-2004 2:38 PM CreationMan has not replied

BobAliceEve
Member (Idle past 5395 days)
Posts: 107
From: Seattle, WA, USA
Joined: 02-03-2004


Message 67 of 141 (96251)
03-31-2004 6:14 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by crashfrog
03-30-2004 7:15 AM


Feelings
Hi Crashfrog and company,
Below, I throw out some itemized statements which might be usable to avoid repetition. They might even be the beginning of a foundation of agreement on several things.
Crashfrog and I have repeatedly had the short discussion regarding feelings and evidence. I have clearly stated that my knowledge of God is not derived from my feelings. I can not tell if Crashfrog thinks that I believe that feelings are evidence or has simply minusderstood my statement. This may resolve the issue.
EvC001: In the discussion of the theory of evolution, feelings derived from a non-believer's association with God are, to those who believe in evolution, not evidence of the invalidity of the theory of evolution.
--------------------------------------------
Now, what about interpertation of and selection of evidence? An innocent man is taken to a court of law which convicts him of murder and punishes him accordingly. Twelve people and a judge somehow are not able to reach the correct conclusion even though they have (they think) all the evidence. Obviously, the set of evidence which convicted the man is a subset of the evidence which would have exonerated (sp) him.
To say that his innocence was "refuted" seems inappropriate?
EvC002: Evolutionists and Creationists may never identify a common set of evidence from which to make a decision regarding the two possibilities.
-------------------------------
Some evolutionists believe that the theory of evolution has been proven true and others think/feel "it is so darn close". Some creationists believe in ex nhilo creation and some belive that the the word used actually means organized. Some evolutionists state that the enlargement of a birds bill is a proof of evolution and others state that it is simply an adaptation which will disappear when the rains come once again. Some creationists insist on a literal six day creation while others point out that the sun was not yet created when the first day was declared.
EvC003: Regarding the theories of evolution and creationism, there is no consensus in either camp about the state of their individual case.
---------------------------
There are parts of cosmology and evolution that are untestable. On other parts, tests have been run but we are required to rely on the veracity of the instrument and the reporter for the results. Some parts of the physical world can be sensed but not tested or described. The existence of God is untestable by instrument.
EvC004: That a portion of a theory is untestable does not, in and of itself, invalidate the theory.
----------------------------
I am guessing that we can not even agree on all of these statements. That would make EvC005 but I will not add it until I hear from the group. Would it be a good thing to see where we agree? Possibly, we could work up a very simple "necessary and sufficient" list and stop this endless loop. I, like you, have seen the same general arguments for many years? I think Charles Darwin was on to something when he said "If one part of the theory of evolution can be disproven then the whole of it is false." (that may be a paraphrase but it is close - I do not have my "Origin of the Species" handy). Could we look together for specific failures so that we can "drop it like a hot potato" if there is a breakdown?
I have no delusion that I will be personally instrumental in disproving tToE (I am not expert enough) nor do I believe that everyone will be pursuaded should it be proven false (no one can pursuade the closed minded). But I do believe that there is a single point of failure and that the experts will find it. Could it happen here?
Very best regards to all,
Bob, Alice, and Eve

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by crashfrog, posted 03-30-2004 7:15 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by nator, posted 03-31-2004 9:19 AM BobAliceEve has not replied
 Message 69 by Quetzal, posted 03-31-2004 10:48 AM BobAliceEve has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 68 of 141 (96286)
03-31-2004 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by BobAliceEve
03-31-2004 6:14 AM


Re: Feelings
quote:
Some evolutionists believe that the theory of evolution has been proven true and others think/feel "it is so darn close".
It is more accurate to say that evolutionists accept the ToE as the best explanation currently available to explain the body of evidence.
quote:
Some creationists believe in ex nhilo creation and some belive that the the word used actually means organized. Some evolutionists state that the enlargement of a birds bill is a proof of evolution and others state that it is simply an adaptation which will disappear when the rains come once again. Some creationists insist on a literal six day creation while others point out that the sun was not yet created when the first day was declared.
EvC003: Regarding the theories of evolution and creationism, there is no consensus in either camp about the state of their individual case.
Incorrect.
There is no debate within the scientific community regarding the validity of the ToE. Scientists may debate the specific mechanisms of evolution, but there is no longer any debate regarding the validity descent with modification, and there hasn't been been for around a century.
You are correct, however, that there has never been anything close to consensus among the Christian Creationist movement. You all can't even agree if the Earth is 6,000 years old or ancient.
That's what happens when you let religious revelation replace evidence in scientific investigation.
quote:
There are parts of cosmology and evolution that are untestable.
On other parts, tests have been run but we are required to rely on the veracity of the instrument and the reporter for the results.
No, you misunderstand the scientific process.
First of all, if you doubt the instruments and the researchers regarding evolution research, then you must doubt the entirety of science. The scientific method Biologists use is the exact same method every other scientist uses to do every other kind of science.
Also, you don't have to rely on the resrarcher or the instruments; that is the tentativity of science. Anyone can attempt to repeat the observations or experiments.
quote:
Some parts of the physical world can be sensed but not tested or described.
Really? Which parts?
quote:
The existence of God is untestable by instrument.
Exactly. That's why we cannot include the supernatural in scientific investigations.
Creationism is, in principal and in it's entirety, untestable.
Parts of Evolution remain untested.
Big difference.
quote:
I think Charles Darwin was on to something when he said "If one part of the theory of evolution can be disproven then the whole of it is false." (that may be a paraphrase but it is close - I do not have my "Origin of the Species" handy).
First, remember that Darwin's theory was Natural Selection, not Evolution.
Second, Origin of Species is on line at the following site. Perhaps you could find where Darwin said the above and indicate the chapter?
The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by BobAliceEve, posted 03-31-2004 6:14 AM BobAliceEve has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 69 of 141 (96312)
03-31-2004 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by BobAliceEve
03-31-2004 6:14 AM


Re: Feelings
Hi BAE,
EvC001: In the discussion of the theory of evolution, feelings derived from a non-believer's association with God are, to those who believe in evolution, not evidence of the invalidity of the theory of evolution.
Hmm, I think you may have misphrased this (i.e., believer vs non-believer's feelings). However, I understand what you're trying to say. I tend to disagree. The key point here being that evolution, as a scientific theory, IS NOT and CAN NOT be based on feelings. Feelings are subjective, unique to an individual, non-concensual, un-repeatable, and inherently unfalsifiable. Evidence based on subjective testimony (i.e., an attestation of feelings on a subject) is not sufficient to prove the validity or invalidity of a non-subjective claim. IOW, you can't use it to argue against science - any science. It's not a question of evolutionists believing or not believing your claim to a subjective experience - it's that these experiences cannot be used in a scientific discussion. Period.
Where the problem derives with what you stated is that you seem to be proposing that there is in fact objective criteria to judge subjective experience. In your case, you have stated that your belief in God has the same objective, empirical support as a scientific theory (evolution). This is basically a contradiction in terms: since "association with God" is an intensely subjective and individual experience (witness the myriad of differing interpretations of God amongst believers), it is not possible to introduce such belief or association as objective evidence. OTOH, if you were to provide physical, repeatable, (i.e., objective) evidence of the existence of God or at least valid and repeatable empirical evidence that such a being has manifested itself physically, then and only then would such an entity be "allowable" in a scientific discussion. Where are the fingerprints of God?
EvC002: Evolutionists and Creationists may never identify a common set of evidence from which to make a decision regarding the two possibilities.
Again, I disagree. Evidence - the data or facts of nature which are all around us - aren't going to change simply because our explanations for those facts are different. However, in evaluating those facts or in producing the inference to the best explanation, certain fundamental procedures must be adhered to by both sides:
1. Our explanation must be falsifiable. We MUST be able to come up with a way to show that our idea is wrong. I know that's kind of counterintuitive, but what it means is that if our idea is false, then there conceivably can be evidence discovered that will prove it false, and if the idea is true, then the available evidence will not DISPROVE it. Consider: if nothing could ever disprove an idea or claim (the invulnerable claim), then whatever evidence DOES exist wouldn't matter - it would be pointless to even look at the evidence because the conclusion is already known.
I've seen many creationists routinely violate this principle. There are two basic ways in which this happens:
a) they make an undeclared claim (an assertion so broad, vague, or ambiguous that the assertion lacks any real content) such as "only with the eyes of the spirit can God's handiwork be seen". What is spirit? How do spiritual eyes work? How does a non-coporeal entity process light in the first place? What IS God and how would I know it when I see it? Etc.
b) they use a "multiple out" (basically an inexhaustable series of excuses or ad hoc rationalizations to explain away contrary evidence or the lack of supporting evidence for their ideas). The "anticreationist scientific conspiracy suppressing creation science" is a prime example. There is literally no way to falsify a multiple out: the reason there is no evidence supporting the idea is that "they" are suppressing it. Heads I win, tails you lose.
2. The evidence offered in support of our ideas must take into consideration all available evidence. IOW, no cheating: you can't take into consideration ONLY that evidence which seems to support your idea. ALL available evidence must be taken into account, and our idea MUST explain ALL the evidence. If neither idea can explain everything, then the one that explains the most with the fewest assumptions wins. That's how science works - this isn't a courtroom, where evidence can be manipulated and distorted to suit the preconceived conclusions of either the prosecution or defense. Nor can one side win on a technicality. By all means, interpret the evidence as you will - just be prepared to be hoist by the comprehensiveness petard.
3. Evidence offered in support of our ideas must be evaluated without self-deception. Again, no cheating: if there exists evidence which contradicts the idea, then you have to be willing to abandon it. This is hard to do - people will do almost anything to avoid challenging cherished beliefs (denial, avoidance, rationalization, etc). Scientists aren't any better than anyone else in this regard - which was the basis of Kuhn's "scientific revolution" philosophy (btw, I think Kuhn was wrong: scientific progress doesn't normally happen through paradigm-bending "eureka" moments that are only accepted after all the adherents of the old paradigm are dead and buried. Rather, scientific progress normally occurs when some scientist is puddling about in the lab or walking through a rainforest and says, "Now that's odd. I wonder..." But I digress.) However, science has a built-in filter that corrects for this problem called "peer review". It doesn't mean that an individual scientist will necessarily abandon a pet theory when the evidence proves them wrong - see cold fusion for example. It means that the idea is going to have to be modified to reflect reality before being accepted.
4. An independent observer, under the same conditions and circumstances, must be able to achieve the same results. If I correctly predict the next roll of a pair of dice, you need to demand that I repeat the feat before accepting that I can predict the future. Alternatively, if a phenomenon can be the product of a coincidence, the phenomenon must be replicated by someone else under the same conditions before coincidence can be rejected as an explanation. If coincidence IS the explanation, then the results will not be replicated. This especially harks back to your God hypothesis. If you claim God manifests in such and such a way, then the produced phenomena MUST be repeatable or observable by someone else - or many others - under identical conditions OR the phenomena produced for you must be considered coincidental and is invalid to use as evidential support for the hypothesis. See the problem?
5. The evidence offered in support of our ideas must be adequate to establish the truth of the idea - the Rule of Sufficiency. There are a couple of parts to this bit:
a) the burden of proof for any claim lies on the claimant. The absence of disconfirming evidence is NOT the same as presence of confirming evidence. It is invalid to demand that I disprove the existence of God, for example. Belief in the validity of a claim can't be based on the absence of negative evidence; only on confirming evidence. It is the claimant's responsibility to provide that evidence.
b) extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I know this is kind of trite, but consider: if I claim that it rained today where I live, you could probably accept that claim as true (I'm in the northeastern US, it's the end of March, it often rains here this time of year). However, if I claim I was abducted by aliens and taken to the far side of the moon for bizarre medical experiments, you would be justified in demanding some additional evidence. My testimony, sufficient for the ordinary claim of rain in March, is not sufficient for the extraordinary alien abduction claim. The same thing works for the God hypothesis: the existence of a non-material, non-corporeal entity that is eternal and exists outside of the universe-as-we-know-it, is an extraordinary claim. Additional evidence of this entity's existence is required before it can be accepted as an explanation for anything.
c) evidence based on testimony and/or recourse to authority is not sufficient to prove the truth (or falsehood!) of an idea. Basically, humans are fallible. Leaving outright fabrication aside, "expertise" is not a guarantee against mistakes. A person's credentials, knowledge and experience cannot, in and of themselves, be taken as sufficient evidence to establish the validity of an explanation. Eyewitness testimony is also exceptionally problematic, as any cop or trial lawyer will tell you. Single source testimony is even worse. Even if a lot of people think they see the same thing, I would be hesitant to accept an extraordinary claim on this alone. There is simply too much chance for error and collective delusion.
So, bottom line: if both sides can examine the available evidence, and meet all of these criteria with their explanations, then we truly DO have two choices that come down to worldview. Care to take a stab at it?
EvC003: Regarding the theories of evolution and creationism, there is no consensus in either camp about the state of their individual case.
I'm not sure this is the case. Don't conflate disagreement over the details of evolutionary theory (arguments over relative importance of mechanisms, different cladistics, lumpers vs splitters, mode and tempo, the validity of molecular clocks, etc) with the fact of evolution: populations change over time, and with deep time, populations can change radically. There is literally zero disagreement over the fact that evolution has occurred among relevant scientists, and very little over the fact of common ancestry (which ancestor is which is another story). Contrast that with the gulf of opinion between ID, pantheistic creationism, YEC, OEC, etc.
EvC004: That a portion of a theory is untestable does not, in and of itself, invalidate the theory.
You may need to expand on this a bit before I can comment - I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at. What portions of the ToE are untestable (i.e., unscientific)? You might also explain what you mean by test - I think we may be talking about two different interpretations of what constitutes a valid scientific test.
I am guessing that we can not even agree on all of these statements. That would make EvC005 but I will not add it until I hear from the group. Would it be a good thing to see where we agree? Possibly, we could work up a very simple "necessary and sufficient" list and stop this endless loop. I, like you, have seen the same general arguments for many years? I think Charles Darwin was on to something when he said "If one part of the theory of evolution can be disproven then the whole of it is false." (that may be a paraphrase but it is close - I do not have my "Origin of the Species" handy). Could we look together for specific failures so that we can "drop it like a hot potato" if there is a breakdown?
I think it would be great if we could come up with "necessary and sufficient" general arguments. It would save a lot of time. Perhaps we can use my five evidential criteria as a starting point? As to the potential falsifications, sure we can probably come to something of a general agreement on what would constitute a falsification of the ToE if found, but can we come up with something that would be a falsification of God if found? And if so, would you accept it?
I have no delusion that I will be personally instrumental in disproving tToE (I am not expert enough) nor do I believe that everyone will be pursuaded should it be proven false (no one can pursuade the closed minded). But I do believe that there is a single point of failure and that the experts will find it. Could it happen here?
Oh, I don't know. Anyone that came up with a glaring error in the theory would be in line for the Nobel. As far as being persuaded, I won't lie to you: it would have to be pretty persuasive evidence to overturn a key feature of biology like evolution. You'd be turning the entire science upside down, because the reigning conception for the last 50 years or so was summed up by Dobhzansky: "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." That's not dogma, that's a statement on the nature of the problem faced by creationists. If you're going to overturn all of the biological sciences (note the plural), you're going to have to come up with something pretty fundamental to the theory that's wrong.
Personally, I don't see that there's a single weak point that would topple the whole edifice unless it was something on the order of showing inheritance doesn't work the way we think it does, or that the Earth really IS only 6000 years old, or that teleological adaptation is more important that natural selection, or somesuch. However, the ToE is built up by literally thousands of independent, converging lines of inquiry from totally separate disciplines that ALL lead to the same conclusion. Your falsification of evolution will have to address each of them, I would think. Or at least come up with an alternative that ALSO converges to the same point on all of them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by BobAliceEve, posted 03-31-2004 6:14 AM BobAliceEve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by BobAliceEve, posted 04-07-2004 7:52 AM Quetzal has not replied
 Message 138 by BobAliceEve, posted 04-09-2004 8:33 AM Quetzal has not replied

CreationMan
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 141 (96365)
03-31-2004 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by MrHambre
03-30-2004 3:42 PM


Objection Sustained
Hambre
Oh, I see. The genetic evidence we use to establish common ancestry is the exact same evidence that establishes paternity in court. Perhaps you'd tell the jury that your client's DNA is so similar to his alleged child's DNA not because he's the father, but because of 'common design.' That might work.
Good illustration, bad application. The DNA in our body's link us back to our parents and grandparents and so forth, but they do not link us back to an ape-like creature or any other "common ancestor"
Just because there are similarities in DNA between species of organisms (i.e., man & chimp) does not imply that they have a common ancestor. Rather it argues stronger for a comon designer. Look at a porsche and a VW, they are very similar cars because they had the same designer!
A number of studies have demonstrated a remarkable similarity in the nuclear DNA and mtDNA among modern humans. In fact, the DNA sequences for all people are so similar that we biologists usually say that modern humans had a recent origin.
Evolutionist Professor Steven Jones said that bananas share 50% of their genes with humans, but that doesn’t make humans closely related to bananas. Some genes have profound control over development. And it has long been known that the very same gene in two different organisms can have a different function. Anyone can make figures say what they want, and anyone could say that on the basis of 97 chosen genes, humans and bananas are the very same species, since they are 100% identical. But of course we know this is proposterous to suggest.
Incidentally, I didn't imply that evolution had been proven because a lot of people believe it. What I said was that it can't just be a religious belief, because people of every religion (or lack thereof) accept it on scientific terms. Plenty of people believe in God and accept evolution, so your accusation that evolution is based on people's philosophical predisposition against religious explanations is null and void.
They don't accept it on scientific terms, they accept it on the word of scientists. People thought the practice of blood letting was a good medical treatment too, not because there was scientific evidence for it, but because the scientific community thought it was good. Of course now we know it was disasterously wrong. The same principal applies here. Religions accept evolution NOT based on the evidence, but based on the word of evolutionists.
Best Ragards
[This message has been edited by CreationMan, 03-31-2004]

"The Fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God'"
Creation Man

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by MrHambre, posted 03-30-2004 3:42 PM MrHambre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by MrHambre, posted 03-31-2004 2:42 PM CreationMan has replied
 Message 72 by Percy, posted 03-31-2004 3:29 PM CreationMan has not replied
 Message 73 by Loudmouth, posted 03-31-2004 3:40 PM CreationMan has not replied

MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 71 of 141 (96371)
03-31-2004 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by CreationMan
03-31-2004 1:54 PM


The Bad Lawyer
quote:
Just because there are similarities in DNA between species of organisms (i.e., man & chimp) does not imply that they have a common ancestor. Rather it argues stronger for a comon (sic) designer.
Really? So why would there be differing degrees of correlation among genomes? Evolutionists say that the degree of correlation would be indirectly proportional to the time that has elapsed since the two organisms shared a common ancestor. What would the creationists say?
Back to court, where you're defending a client from a charge of plagiarism. Although your client's article has fundamental differences from the alleged original (like your client's name on the top), there are spelling and punctuation mistakes that are identical to mistakes in the original. Do you advise your client to plead innocent, even though it stretches the bounds of credulity to claim that the same mistakes occurred during separate acts of creation?
Then consider this. Between the human genome and a chimp's, there are differences. However, the exact same nonfunctioning pseudogene (like the wrecked vitamin-C gene) in the exact same place in both genomes cannot conceivably support an assertion that these are separate acts of creation. A much more plausible explanation is that humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor, from whom both species inherited the pseudogene.
regards,
Esteban Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by CreationMan, posted 03-31-2004 1:54 PM CreationMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by CreationMan, posted 03-31-2004 4:59 PM MrHambre has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 72 of 141 (96397)
03-31-2004 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by CreationMan
03-31-2004 1:54 PM


Re: Objection Sustained
CreationMan writes:
Just because there are similarities in DNA between species of organisms (i.e., man & chimp) does not imply that they have a common ancestor. Rather it argues stronger for a comon designer.
MrHambre addressed this already, but coming at this from a different angle, the evidence seems to argue for either evolution or a common designer. The evidence for evolution is copious, for a common designer missing.
Anyone can make figures say what they want, and anyone could say that on the basis of 97 chosen genes, humans and bananas are the very same species, since they are 100% identical. But of course we know this is proposterous to suggest.
This seems a purposeful distortion by any standard.
They don't accept it on scientific terms, they accept it on the word of scientists.
The key point is that scientists of all faiths (and no faiths) accept evolution, while only scientists who are also fundamentalist Christians accept Creationism.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by CreationMan, posted 03-31-2004 1:54 PM CreationMan has not replied

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 141 (96402)
03-31-2004 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by CreationMan
03-31-2004 1:54 PM


Re: Objection Sustained
quote:
Good illustration, bad application. The DNA in our body's link us back to our parents and grandparents and so forth, but they do not link us back to an ape-like creature or any other "common ancestor"
Yes it does. Through the study of pseudogenes, ERV insertions, and overall similarity, it does lead to the conclusion of common ancestory. Also, as mentioned by Mr Hambre, there is a correlation between genetic differences and time since common ancestory. This is a correlation between radiometric dating, fossil stratigraphy, and genetic sequence, all of which are independent of each other. If three different, independent metrics are all consistant with one theory, you have a well supported theory. Common ancestory is that theory.
quote:
Look at a porsche and a VW, they are very similar cars because they had the same designer!
And cars are not imperfect replicators, they don't reproduce. The only known mechanism for creating a car is through human ingenuity. This is a logical fallacy, an argument from analogy. Your theory of common designer/common design rests on the fact that cars are designed. In nature we see a designer, a blind algorithm that designs reproducing organisms to better fit their environment. That algorithm is evolution. There is no need to insert any other designer, other than feeling better about one's requirements to believe in the theology of the Bible.
quote:
Anyone can make figures say what they want, and anyone could say that on the basis of 97 chosen genes, humans and bananas are the very same species, since they are 100% identical. But of course we know this is proposterous to suggest.
Show me one gene that is base for base identical between bananas and humans and I will be stunned. There are identical genes, but their sequence is divergent. It is this divergence in sequence that allows us to construct phylogenies that are independent of the fossil record, and yet the two phylogenies (genetic and fossil) are identical.
quote:
They don't accept it on scientific terms, they accept it on the word of scientists. People thought the practice of blood letting was a good medical treatment too, not because there was scientific evidence for it, but because the scientific community thought it was good.
And this is why evolutionists find creationist literature so dangerous. People agree with creationist pseudoscientists because it makes them feel better about their faith, not because of the reliability of the science. Real science is peer reviewed and can be challeneged by anyone at anytime due to the openness of scientific literature. Everything you need to replicate someone's work is in the primary literature. No one is hiding behind credentials, much less hiding behind trust gained through a common religious belief as is the case within creationist literature.
quote:
Religions accept evolution NOT based on the evidence, but based on the word of evolutionists.
I will agree that this does happen, no doubt about it. Understanding evolution takes time and effort, something that not everyone is able to do. People trust in science because of the peer review system and the intrinsic competitiveness within science. You are rewarded for reliable and trustworthy science, which is measured by the quality of your publications and the insight it allows into the natural world. Scientists will not let other scientists be right unless the evidence is compelling, such is the nature of peer review and competition. Creationist literature has none of the above, only a cursory check to make sure the conclusions state that special creation 6,000 years is the only viable option. Evolution is evidence first, conclusion last. Creationism is conclusion first, and then whatever evidence fits the conclusion. This is why religions trust real science, and are quickly moving away from the pseudoscience that creationists practice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by CreationMan, posted 03-31-2004 1:54 PM CreationMan has not replied

CreationMan
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 141 (96429)
03-31-2004 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by MrHambre
03-31-2004 2:42 PM


The Misunderstanding Prosecutor
Really? So why would there be differing degrees of correlation among genomes? Evolutionists say that the degree of correlation would be indirectly proportional to the time that has elapsed since the two organisms shared a common ancestor. What would the creationists say?
Simple. The reason why there are differing degrees of correlation is because they are not identically the same. If you have a Labrador and a Collie, they have variation in their genome because of the speciation that has occurred over time. Both those DOGS had a "common ancestor," but that "common ancestor"was a DOG.
Back to court, where you're defending a client from a charge of plagiarism. Although your client's article has fundamental differences from the alleged original (like your client's name on the top), there are spelling and punctuation mistakes that are identical to mistakes in the original. Do you advise your client to plead innocent, even though it stretches the bounds of credulity to claim that the same mistakes occurred during separate acts of creation?
Your question is asked out of misunderstanding. Those mistakes are not present as a result of seperate acts of creation. Remember, creationism does NOT propose that animals have not changed over time, that is an evolutionist misconception. We would suggest that over time, animal genomes have changed and modified over time through mutations. Thus the wide variety of animals WITH mistakes. Don't think that the client copied the paper with errors once and denies copying it. Think of it like this, the client AKNOWLEDGES he copied it thousands of times and each time that he copied it mistakes were made and they kept accumulating and still do.
Then consider this. Between the human genome and a chimp's, there are differences. However, the exact same nonfunctioning pseudogene (like the wrecked vitamin-C gene) in the exact same place in both genomes cannot conceivably support an assertion that these are separate acts of creation.
Agreed, but you are assuming that humans and chimps are related and were created with those mistakes. But they weren't created with those mistakes, they were created perfectly and seperately and accumulated those mistakes over time.
A much more plausible explanation is that humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor, from whom both species inherited the pseudogene.
That's your interpretation.
Best Regards
[This message has been edited by CreationMan, 03-31-2004]

"The Fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God'"
Creation Man

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by MrHambre, posted 03-31-2004 2:42 PM MrHambre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Loudmouth, posted 03-31-2004 5:27 PM CreationMan has not replied
 Message 76 by MrHambre, posted 03-31-2004 7:07 PM CreationMan has replied
 Message 77 by Andya Primanda, posted 04-01-2004 3:08 AM CreationMan has not replied

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 141 (96436)
03-31-2004 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by CreationMan
03-31-2004 4:59 PM


Re: The Misunderstanding Prosecutor
quote:
Agreed, but you are assuming that humans and chimps are related and were created with those mistakes. But they weren't created with those mistakes, they were created perfectly and seperately and accumulated those mistakes over time.
And again, the plagarism analogy is applied. Out of a 3 billion base genome, why would separately created species have exactly the same mutation which was acquired through separate mutation events in the same gene? It doens't compute. However, if chimps and humans have a common ancestor, then we don't have to depend on the same mutation occuring at the same base within a 3 billion base genome. Instead, it happened once and this trait was passed down through heritability to both branches from the common ancestor. Multiply the problem with just one gene (the vitamin c synthase pseudogene) by the numerous other examples of prallelism between chimp and human genomes that give rise to the same problems when assuming separate, non related species. With just one example we have a 1 in 3 billion chance, imagine the odds if 100 other such characteristics are put into the mix and you will begin to understand the problem with assuming special creation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by CreationMan, posted 03-31-2004 4:59 PM CreationMan has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024