Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,742 Year: 3,999/9,624 Month: 870/974 Week: 197/286 Day: 4/109 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationists:: What would convince you that evolution has happened ?
Martin J. Koszegi
Inactive Member


Message 321 of 385 (14664)
08-01-2002 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 316 by nator
07-25-2002 12:53 AM


Quote:
s: You can't interpret the record without having a time frame-- this would require secondary assumptions whether you argue creation or evolution or anything else. I think that you are neglecting to consider the assumptions of Creationism. Creation would require the assumption of a very short time-frame; evolution a long time-frame. This time-frame isn't immediately obvious. It requires many other sciences to establish. You can't look out the window and see the time-frame. All you can see is right now.
Reply:
m: I realize that assumptions are incorporated into both models. It's just that creationism fits the facts more harmoniously when 2ndary assumptions are not factored into the equation.
s: Translation:
Creationists ignore evidence of dating and time frames from multiple fields of study because this is the only way their "model" will work.
Reply:
m: Creationists do not ignore anything. Evolutionists will not take into consideration the objective perspective that recognizes the untrustworthy nature of the touted dating methods--evolutionists are this way because that is the only way their "model" will work.
In remembrance that only Jesus must be reckoned with . . . (martinkoszegi@yahoo.com)
--Marty

This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by nator, posted 07-25-2002 12:53 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 334 by nator, posted 08-01-2002 10:27 PM Martin J. Koszegi has not replied

Martin J. Koszegi
Inactive Member


Message 322 of 385 (14665)
08-01-2002 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 317 by Peter
07-25-2002 3:07 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Peter:
Saying no positive evidence of supernatural, therefore
nature is all there is
OR
No evidence against, so earth could be created
Are different ... becuase of the conditional 'could'.
I think the point being made was that science does not rule
out the supernatural, it simply makes no claims about it one
way or another, becuase it cannot find evidence to test.

Reply:
So, then, it (current "scientific" practice) is not nuetral, i.e., not objective; the metaphysical philosophy of naturalism reigns in spite of the possibility that that (naturalistic) assumption is wrong.
In remembrance that only Jesus must be reckoned with . . . (martinkoszegi@yahoo.com)
--Marty

This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by Peter, posted 07-25-2002 3:07 AM Peter has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 332 by nator, posted 08-01-2002 9:49 PM Martin J. Koszegi has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 323 of 385 (14667)
08-01-2002 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 320 by Martin J. Koszegi
08-01-2002 6:50 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
m: OK? "In the absence of any other data" assume that the unprovable philosophy of naturalism is valid? That's not objective.
Martin, what we see, hear, etc and what we can infer are the only sources of information we have. Those sources are by default what you would can naturalistic -- I prefer empiricism actually, but no point debating that. What data is there that isn't natural? I'd be happy to include it. Tell me how. Ruling out biased natural data and in the absence of non-natural data, what are we to use to distinguish the true from the false?
quote:
m: Your "It just is" rationale is just as applicable to the mindset of naturalists who, without proof, assume that nature is all there is.
Interesting, but we were discussing the introduction of secondary assumptions and you did not address that issue.
It isn't an matter of assuming that nature is all there is, it is a matter of reasoning using the only data we have instead of the data we don't have.
quote:
m: Given the number of fossils we do have, and given the mismatch of those fossils with what evolutionism requires, the assumption of creation of distinct kinds makes more sense than the assumption of a holistic continuum springing from one kind.
1) Please define kind. It makes no sense to discuss it if we don't know what the word means. You, perhaps, know but I don't.
2) Fossils match pretty exactly what evolution requires.
quote:
m: You may be confusing "limitations" with "choice."
No, I wasn't confusing the two. I understand the distinction. What I was trying to point out is that we, as limited creatures, build upon what we already know. So this seems the normal method. But there is no reason to ascribe this habit of building on past effort to an unlimited God.
quote:
God could have created life forms, each of which could have been as different as the (cinematic) PREDATOR alien is compared to the ALIEN alien. It seems perfectly reasonable to me, though, for God to create with some consistency, in patterns, rather than each form exhibiting a complete departure from all other forms.
It seems pefectly unreasonable to me. Deadlock.
... and is an illustration of WHY we need hard data to back up opinion.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 320 by Martin J. Koszegi, posted 08-01-2002 6:50 PM Martin J. Koszegi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 326 by Martin J. Koszegi, posted 08-01-2002 8:22 PM John has replied

Martin J. Koszegi
Inactive Member


Message 324 of 385 (14669)
08-01-2002 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 318 by Peter
07-25-2002 3:21 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Peter:
[B]
quote:
Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
If by that you mean I can hold the opinion that science doesn't know one way or another about ultimate origin, I do hold that opinion.
quote:
People don't know one way or another about the ultimate origin,
if they did this discussion board wouldn't exist.
Some people hold deep seated beliefs about how it all began,
and others look at the evidence they can find and make
rational explanations of the evidence. If this leads to a
particular theory of origin becoming widely held as credible
then through science we have found a good indication of the
ultimate origins.
Reply:
Some evolutionists hold deep seated metaphysical beliefs about how it all began, and others, such as creationists, (also) look at the evidence rationally and find consistency (with their own metaphysical beliefs). Through creation science, then, we have found a good indication of the ultimate origin.
Both groups use the tool of science to support their unscientific ideas; the problem becomes increasingly pronounced when the definition of "science" is controlled by a presently seated coup.
Quote:
I agree about tv documentaries though. In my experience of them
they are biased in the views that they protray. I have
constant arguments with my older brother, who has no research
training, because he will take a documentary as fact without
questioning research methods, data interpretations, or the
possibility of bias.
I don't think the scientific community places much emphasis on
tv documentaries though, and while that may influence the
layman the theories are formulated and progressed by professionals.
Reply:
And I agree that the scientific community does not place much emphasis on tv documentaries; my complaint is that it is part of the whole sociological vortex of evolutionism that produces unthinking dogmatists of evolutionary assumptivism--that the information itself is rediculously erroneous, is just a matter of course.
In remembrance that only Jesus must be reckoned with . . . (martinkoszegi@yahoo.com)
--Marty

This message is a reply to:
 Message 318 by Peter, posted 07-25-2002 3:21 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 325 by John, posted 08-01-2002 7:46 PM Martin J. Koszegi has replied
 Message 381 by Peter, posted 08-12-2002 7:11 AM Martin J. Koszegi has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 325 of 385 (14672)
08-01-2002 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 324 by Martin J. Koszegi
08-01-2002 7:34 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
the problem becomes increasingly pronounced when the definition of "science" is controlled by a presently seated coup.
What definition do you propose? Can you lay out an unbiased method for us?
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 324 by Martin J. Koszegi, posted 08-01-2002 7:34 PM Martin J. Koszegi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 327 by Martin J. Koszegi, posted 08-01-2002 8:40 PM John has not replied

Martin J. Koszegi
Inactive Member


Message 326 of 385 (14676)
08-01-2002 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 323 by John
08-01-2002 7:28 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
m: OK? "In the absence of any other data" assume that the unprovable philosophy of naturalism is valid? That's not objective.
Martin, what we see, hear, etc and what we can infer are the only sources of information we have. Those sources are by default what you would can naturalistic -- I prefer empiricism actually, but no point debating that. What data is there that isn't natural? I'd be happy to include it. Tell me how. Ruling out biased natural data and in the absence of non-natural data, what are we to use to distinguish the true from the false?
Reply:
I don't mind limiting science to empirical data. But I insist on distinguishing empirical data from governing philosophical systems that assume BECAUSE WE STUDY NATURE, NATURE IS ALL THAT EXISTS.
I was going to get a high school biology book that I remembered reading (so that I could give source material), but for now I'll just cite an example of what I'm talking about from memory. The text was discussing the origin of life, and it went on to say (and this I do recall exactly as it was written--biographical info. available next week): ". . . and this is the part of the story that is the most difficult to understand; at some point these physical particles must have come together to form life from nonlife."
The above "must have," is blatant naturalism. It is not empirical. It is not just procedurally innocent ol' blokes who use "naturalism" simply because they are limited to their senses when they investigate nature. It is philosophical indoctrination.
You disagree with this, don't you.
quote:
m: Your "It just is" rationale is just as applicable to the mindset of naturalists who, without proof, assume that nature is all there is.
Interesting, but we were discussing the introduction of secondary assumptions and you did not address that issue.
Reply:
I believe there are good grounds for making the case that we can appeal to the issue of secondary assumptions (and evolutionism's overuse of them) in order to illustrate the superior nature of creationism over evolutionism.
quote:
It isn't an matter of assuming that nature is all there is, it is a matter of reasoning using the only data we have instead of the data we don't have.
Reply:
As I pointed out above, "science" (a la naturalism) does more than that.
quote:
m: Given the number of fossils we do have, and given the mismatch of those fossils with what evolutionism requires, the assumption of creation of distinct kinds makes more sense than the assumption of a holistic continuum springing from one kind.
1) Please define kind. It makes no sense to discuss it if we don't know what the word means. You, perhaps, know but I don't.
Reply:
Here are some distinguishing traits of the meaning of "kind":
--One kind cannot transform itself into another kind.
--Each kind may experience a limited variation as per the genetic
barriers incorporated into the kind (thus, many different
varieties can emerge within the basic framework of each kind).
--A great many different kinds were created in each of the nine
major groups (excluding man) that are specifically listed in
Genesis.
2) Fossils match pretty exactly what evolution requires.
Reply:
That is a fantastic claim.
quote:
m: You may be confusing "limitations" with "choice."
No, I wasn't confusing the two. I understand the distinction. What I was trying to point out is that we, as limited creatures, build upon what we already know. So this seems the normal method. But there is no reason to ascribe this habit of building on past effort to an unlimited God.
Reply:
We are created in God's image. God did use consistency. We do too. It's one of those secondary assumptions to conclude that this would imply a weakness on God's part.
quote:
God could have created life forms, each of which could have been as different as the (cinematic) PREDATOR alien is compared to the ALIEN alien. It seems perfectly reasonable to me, though, for God to create with some consistency, in patterns, rather than each form exhibiting a complete departure from all other forms.
It seems pefectly unreasonable to me. Deadlock.
... and is an illustration of WHY we need hard data to back up opinion.

Reply:
Now you're talking. You're right--no more of this naturalistic, it "must have" (happened this way) mentality that is being disguised in our textbooks as science.
In remembrance that only Jesus must be reckoned with . . . (martinkoszegi@yahoo.com)
--Marty

This message is a reply to:
 Message 323 by John, posted 08-01-2002 7:28 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 337 by nator, posted 08-01-2002 10:55 PM Martin J. Koszegi has replied
 Message 338 by John, posted 08-01-2002 11:07 PM Martin J. Koszegi has replied
 Message 340 by compmage, posted 08-02-2002 2:35 AM Martin J. Koszegi has not replied

Martin J. Koszegi
Inactive Member


Message 327 of 385 (14677)
08-01-2002 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 325 by John
08-01-2002 7:46 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
the problem becomes increasingly pronounced when the definition of "science" is controlled by a presently seated coup.
What definition do you propose? Can you lay out an unbiased method for us?

Reply:
Everything in "science" could remain the same, except when a particular theory, hypothesis, or notion is put forth, a way of evaluating its quality according to some established hierarchy would be of use, distinguishing it, say, as belonging to one of several options (such as Empirical, Rational I [uncontroversial], Rational II [controversial, but not necessarily favoring one philosophical model over another], and Metaphysical).
In remembrance that only Jesus must be reckoned with . . . (martinkoszegi@yahoo.com)
--Marty

This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by John, posted 08-01-2002 7:46 PM John has not replied

Martin J. Koszegi
Inactive Member


Message 328 of 385 (14680)
08-01-2002 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 309 by Peter
07-23-2002 12:13 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Peter:
I guess when it comes down to it, calling on the supernatural
as an explanation has traditionally been the last resort.
If we have a phenomenon, and expend all of the naturalistic
explanations available to ur current level of thought and
technology we are likely to say 'Must be a supernatural
agency then.'
Doesn't mean it is ... just that we've run out of ideas or
methods by which to test them.
If God did create the universe, what evidence would he have left ?

Reply:
But textbook "science" doesn't just put forth this "We don't know yet" mindset; rather, it says (minimally) "It must have" happened this way (speaking of the origin of life, for instance.
I think God would've left unfathomable complexity, harmony, and evidence of design that only practiced rhetoricians could rationalize away.
In remembrance that only Jesus must be reckoned with . . . (martinkoszegi@yahoo.com)
--Marty

This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by Peter, posted 07-23-2002 12:13 PM Peter has not replied

Martin J. Koszegi
Inactive Member


Message 329 of 385 (14681)
08-01-2002 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 297 by Zhimbo
07-20-2002 1:34 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Zhimbo:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
quote:it's a theory to the extent that it has become synonymous,in the minds of many, with evolutionary speculation
The "theory" you mention is "naturalism", which is not a scientify theory but is a philosophy.
I personally know people who believe the theory of evolution AND believe in God. I believe there are members of this forum who accept both of these ideas. There are religious biologists. The Pope believes the evidence for evolution is good.
Reply:
Victims of the marketing success of evolutionism. All of them--from the Pope on down--are apparently willing to believe that death did not come into the world for the first time until after Adam sinned, etc. Christianity isn't a smorgasbord of things that we can pick and choose from in order to satisfy our different palates. Such clear doctrines are ours to either accept or reject.
But yes, there are some Christians who have been decieved into accepting the apostate doctrine of evolutionism over God's word; I pray that they are at least actual Christians, though, and not just tied up into a religious tradition without any sincere individual moment of repentance and acceptance of Christ as Savior. If they're the former, good . . . but I'd admonish such brothers or sisters of mine to renew their minds in accordance with God's word of truth.
quote:
While some people equate the philosophy of naturalism and science, and there are those who think that evolution means there is no God, obviously it is possible to accept science as a study of nature, accept evolution as an explanation for the diversity of life, AND accept the existence of the supernatural.

Reply:
I don't deny these as "possibilities," but they are only what some people choose to believe, some erroneously.
In remembrance that only Jesus must be reckoned with . . . (martinkoszegi@yahoo.com)
--Marty

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by Zhimbo, posted 07-20-2002 1:34 AM Zhimbo has not replied

Martin J. Koszegi
Inactive Member


Message 330 of 385 (14683)
08-01-2002 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by Zhimbo
07-20-2002 1:25 AM


quote:
With regards to the other items, I'm not hopeful you will get back to me, based on past experience with others, but we'll see.
reply:
I am actually doing some research on all of the items that I've been challenged on. I wrote everything down. I will get back to you and to others, as I indicated.
quote:
What I really want you to think about is how reliable your sources of information are. Your beetle and woodpecker examples are simply and undebateably wrong, and seriously wrong. These are [not] minor errors, there are gross misrepresentations. Doesn't that make you worry about your sources?
reply:
If what you are saying is true, regarding information I shared about the beetle and woodpecker, then yes, I would have to admit that certain pieces of information that I read was unreliable and very unfortunate. Making such an admission would not be difficult for me. Creationism's validity has so much going for it that these sorts of (alleged, for now) errors don't really threaten the situation. Let me get this straight, though, are you saying that YOUR sources that teach that those limitless related genetic mistakes that occured over and over to produce macroevolutionary change, are reliable?!
In remembrance that only Jesus must be reckoned with . . . (martinkoszegi@yahoo.com)
--Marty

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Zhimbo, posted 07-20-2002 1:25 AM Zhimbo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 333 by nator, posted 08-01-2002 10:00 PM Martin J. Koszegi has replied

Martin J. Koszegi
Inactive Member


Message 331 of 385 (14684)
08-01-2002 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 305 by Zhimbo
07-22-2002 3:40 PM


quote:
I mention this because I've heard creationists insist that evolution predicts that ALL life would be a big blur without clear borders between kinds. That's a gross misunderstanding - given a "tree of life", such as predicted by evolution, seperate branches would be seperate, even if a single branch is continuous along its length.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Reply:
Yes, I see the reasoning; so, dinosaurs wouldn't blur well with people (although I did watch a documentary that taught, because of certain regularities in tooth structures, we are descendats of dinosaurs--very entertaining). Your point is well taken.
In remembrance that only Jesus must be reckoned with . . . (martinkoszegi@yahoo.com)
--Marty

This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by Zhimbo, posted 07-22-2002 3:40 PM Zhimbo has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2195 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 332 of 385 (14685)
08-01-2002 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 322 by Martin J. Koszegi
08-01-2002 7:16 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
quote:
Originally posted by Peter:
Saying no positive evidence of supernatural, therefore
nature is all there is
OR
No evidence against, so earth could be created
Are different ... becuase of the conditional 'could'.
I think the point being made was that science does not rule
out the supernatural, it simply makes no claims about it one
way or another, becuase it cannot find evidence to test.

Reply:
So, then, it (current "scientific" practice) is not nuetral, i.e., not objective; the metaphysical philosophy of naturalism reigns in spite of the possibility that that (naturalistic) assumption is wrong.
In remembrance that only Jesus must be reckoned with . . . (martinkoszegi@yahoo.com)
--Marty

What you are suggesting is that supernatural explanations be allowed into science.
Please explain how inquiry would benefit.
Actually, I don't think that you understand this point, even now.
There IS NO ASSUMPTION that the "Naturalistic philosophy" is either right or wrong.
Science works with nature. That's it.
Tell me, Marty, why does your religious faith need science to bolster it?
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 08-01-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by Martin J. Koszegi, posted 08-01-2002 7:16 PM Martin J. Koszegi has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2195 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 333 of 385 (14686)
08-01-2002 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 330 by Martin J. Koszegi
08-01-2002 9:31 PM


quote:
Creationism's validity has so much going for it that these sorts of (alleged, for now) errors don't really threaten the situation.
The woodpecker and bobmadier beetle arguments were refuted DECADES ago, yet they are still floating around Creationist circles and turn up every now and again.
They are stiill around because Creationists at all levels are notorious for caring very little, if at all, if the evidence which seems to support their view is of good quality, and also because there is no application of the scientific method to Creationism.
Creationists are not interested in finding out the truth about the natural world; they are interested in promoting a particular interpretation of an ancient religious book. The big Creationist names don't care about quality scholarship, intellectual honesty, or rigorous aherence to the scientific method. They care about winning as many converts as possibe. If the full truth is not disclosed about scientific research and people are misled, then so be it. If you are corrected over and over again about facual errors such as the woodpecker's tongue and the Bombadier bettle, it doesn't really matter because we are going to another town next week where the audience will be filled with people ignorant of science.
"Liars for Jesus" is the term, I think.
quote:
Let me get this straight, though, are you saying that YOUR sources that teach that those limitless related genetic mistakes that occured over and over to produce macroevolutionary change, are reliable?!
Genetic change is not limitless, so your argument is a strawman.
Genetic change is not all there is to evolution, either, so that is also a strawman.
You are forgetting natural selection of favorable traits by the environment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by Martin J. Koszegi, posted 08-01-2002 9:31 PM Martin J. Koszegi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 347 by Martin J. Koszegi, posted 08-02-2002 11:12 PM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2195 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 334 of 385 (14688)
08-01-2002 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 321 by Martin J. Koszegi
08-01-2002 7:03 PM


quote:
m: I realize that assumptions are incorporated into both models. It's just that creationism fits the facts more harmoniously when 2ndary assumptions are not factored into the equation.
s: Translation:
Creationists ignore evidence of dating and time frames from multiple fields of study because this is the only way their "model" will work.
Reply:
m: Creationists do not ignore anything.[/QUOTE]
Sure they do.
They ignore mounds and mounds of evidence that contradicts their interpertation of the Bible.
YEC ignore the fact that flowering plants of various sizes and densities are not found below a certain level in the geologic column, for example.
I have asked all stripes of YEC and OEC to explain how this could be if the Flood really happened, and nobody has ever given me an answer.
quote:
Evolutionists will not take into consideration the objective perspective that recognizes the untrustworthy nature of the touted dating methods
Please explain how the "untrustworthy" dating methods can be wrong in such a way so that all of the different methods almost always bring back matching results.
It isn't nearly enough to make vague allegations of "untrustworthy" dating methods as if that is an argument.
quote:
evolutionists are this way because that is the only way their "model" will work.
Ah, but here you do not understand the difference between how science works and how Creationism works.
Creationism BEGINS with what one is "supposed" to find as per your interpretation of the Bible.
Science begins with observations of nature, and as we observe more and techniques of investigation become better, we expand and make clearer the picture of nature we are attempting to understand.
There is no "supposed to find" aspect of scientific inquiry. We go where the evidence leads. Creationism (as it is followed today) is bound to uphold the inerrancy of the Bible, regardless of any evidence to the contrary.
Darwin had no knowledge of genetics, yet knew that there was some internal mechanism for passing traits on to future generations.
Then Mendel came along and figured that part of the puzzle out.
Then Crick and Francis came along and figured it out even more.
Now we are mapping genomes and splicing genes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 321 by Martin J. Koszegi, posted 08-01-2002 7:03 PM Martin J. Koszegi has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 335 by nator, posted 08-01-2002 10:33 PM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2195 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 335 of 385 (14689)
08-01-2002 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 334 by nator
08-01-2002 10:27 PM


Marty, could you please respond to message #308. Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 334 by nator, posted 08-01-2002 10:27 PM nator 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