Atheism

[evo]

Religion really is in insidious.It causes what would normally be rational people (like Djjevv) to contort their thinking into all sorts of weird ways to try and make creationism 'work' or to show that a fundamental of science ,like evolution ,a mere 'opinion'.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

All DNA evidence says that animals which are physiologically similar have more DNA in common and visa-versa. Is this supposed to be overwhelming evidence? Is quite clear from our classification system that different animals have all sorts of structures (and presumably DNA) in common. You can explain this easily from a creationist POV.

Only if you are ignorant of the facts of genome structure. How much of the human genome encodes the proteins that determine our physiology? 3%.

How similar is the DNA of similar species? The entire rice genome can fit onto a single arm of one of the seven chromosomes of the wheat genome! Why the difference, when physiologically they are quite similar?

Why do we share relics of ancient retroviral infections in our genome in common with our closest primate relatives? That has nothing to do with our physiology and everything to do with our common ancestry.

I could go on and on. You have strong convictions, but they only seem to be informed by creationist and apologist literature. I have read that literature. I have also read the scientific literature. I would strongly urge you to do likewise...it can be quite illuminating.

 

[Disco08]

I read that literature (and watch the videos) when I need a good laugh too.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

I read that literature (and watch the videos) when I need a good laugh too.

Yes, the young earth creationists that reject all aspects of evolution are so far 'out there' that their arguments are laugh-worthy (cue the atheist's nightmare!).

Others, like Djevv, who have preconceived ideas have to contort the evidence to fit their view of the world. This is plainly anti-science. Look at the evidence. Come up with the simplest explanation that best fits the evidence. If more evidence is found that contradicts your view, adjust your view, not the evidence. That is the scientific method.

Another point is that scientific findings are open to criticism in the scientific journals. There is always vociferous debate on all sorts of areas, yet questioning of the fact of evolution is completely absent. Why do you think that is?

 

[Djevv]

I don't want to have a long discussion on creation evolution. I realise that it is accepted by the scientific community. Although there is evidence that supports it, I always find that the evidence is coloured by the philosophy of the interpretor. I don't think they mean it to be that way, but when the whole mindset of the world of science is directed towards materialism then individuals can't help but be caught up in it. Their career depends on it. The scientific method and peer review is some protection, but when scientists, like Panther, are so uncritical, I have little trouble believing that people are going to be easily fooled.

In what I said about evolutionary sequences is simply that it is not hard to find a creature as a fossil and make up a story about it being part of an evolutionary sequence. As the whole world is carried away with evolution and it is well accepted such stories are accepted fairly uncritically. This is why so many evolutionary hoaxes have been foisted on the scientific community. Presumably the articles that cited these as various missing links were peer reviewed. Also peer reviewed are various hypothesis which are later proven incorrect or later re-interpreted. Just reading through Talk-Origins on various 'transitional forms' reveals many which have been debunked or at least have serious question marks.

To me, although things may 'look' like they evolved under their own steam, so does the development of the automobile............

Heres a little quote (I know you love them) on this topic:

“The geosynclinal theory is one of the great unifying principles in geology. In many ways its role in geology is similar to that of the theory of evolution, which serves to integrate the many branches of the biological sciences.... Just as the doctrine of evolution is universally accepted among biologists, so also the geosynclinal origin of the major mountain systems is an established principle in geology.”
—Clark and Stearn, in a geology textbook, shortly before the geosynclincal theory was overturned in favor of plate tectonics. Cited by William Dembski in The Design Revolution (IVP, 2004), p. 207.

 

[Djevv]

Religion really is in insidious.It causes what would normally be rational people (like Djjevv) to contort their thinking into all sorts of weird ways to try and make creationism 'work' or to show that a fundamental of science ,like evolution ,a mere 'opinion'.

How patronising is this!

Firstly, what you call religion revolutionised my life. Taught me how to live, in fact.

Tell me, in what way am I 'contorting my thinking'? I have a model, the flood, which I am trying to interpret the data. This is no different to what other scientists do with their evolution model. I realise not everything fits, but research continues - unfortunately not government funded.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

I don't want to have a long discussion on creation evolution. I realise that it is accepted by the scientific community. Although there is evidence that supports it, I always find that the evidence is coloured by the philosophy of the interpretor. I don't think they mean it to be that way, but when the whole mindset of the world of science is directed towards materialism then individuals can't help but be caught up in it. Their career depends on it. The scientific method and peer review is some protection, but when scientists, like Panther, are so uncritical, I have little trouble believing that people are going to be easily fooled.

"Although there is evidence that supports it...." is a pretty massive understatement. The philosophy of the interpreter? Materialism is accepted in the realm of science as it is a simpler explanation than the theist explanations. To postulate a omnipotent creator is adding an unnecessary variable into the equation. I don't subscribe to materialism because my career depends upon it, I subscribe to it due to its track record at explaining and predicting natural phenomena...many orders of magnitude more accurately then any supernatural philosophy.

Can you please point out my lack of critical thought on the matter. You, as someone with exposure to the sciences, understand the seriousness of such an allegation. You have so far indicated that you are rather ignorant of the latest findings relevant to this debate and continue to cite outdated and debunked creationist literature on the topic. You call me uncritical :?!?

In what I said about evolutionary sequences is simply that it is not hard to find a creature as a fossil and make up a story about it being part of an evolutionary sequence. As the whole world is carried away with evolution and it is well accepted such stories are accepted fairly uncritically. This is why so many evolutionary hoaxes have been foisted on the scientific community. Presumably the articles that cited these as various missing links were peer reviewed. Also peer reviewed are various hypothesis which are later proven incorrect or later re-interpreted. Just reading through Talk-Origins on various 'transitional forms' reveals many which have been debunked or at least have serious question marks.

You are referring to so-called "Just So Stories" that are the target of extreme criticism in evolutionary biology....yes, some scientists do postulate such explanations, but these are not accepted as probable until enough corroborating evidence supports, or otherwise debunks it. To suggest that evolutionary biologists are neither wary, nor critical of such explanations, is again an extremely arrogant stance IMO.

You also refer to the power of peer review, self criticism and revision that science is capable of. Again, I will say that this is the power of the scientific method, not a weakness. Currently accepted scientific theories are our best estimate of the natural state of things. If you have evidence to discredit these theories you are more than welcome to present it. Arguments from incredulity don't really meet that burden.

To me, although things may 'look' like they evolved under their own steam, so does the development of the automobile............

??? You think the automobile looks like it evolved under its own steam....come down to Geelong or Broadmeadows and I'll set you straight on that one.

Heres a little quote (I know you love them) on this topic:

“The geosynclinal theory is one of the great unifying principles in geology. In many ways its role in geology is similar to that of the theory of evolution, which serves to integrate the many branches of the biological sciences.... Just as the doctrine of evolution is universally accepted among biologists, so also the geosynclinal origin of the major mountain systems is an established principle in geology.”
—Clark and Stearn, in a geology textbook, shortly before the geosynclincal theory was overturned in favor of plate tectonics. Cited by William Dembski in The Design Revolution (IVP, 2004), p. 207.

I addressed this above. You haven't presented anything that casts any doubt on the evidence supporting evolutionary theory. Just pointed out that some scientific theories have been discarded or required revision as the evidence dictated. The power of the scientific process in action and our knowledge is better for it. Your supernatural beliefs aren't open to such critical evaluation, nor revision.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

How patronising is this!

Firstly, what you call religion revolutionised my life. Taught me how to live, in fact.

Tell me, in what way am I 'contorting my thinking'? I have a model, the flood, which I am trying to interpret the data. This is no different to what other scientists do with their evolution model. I realise not everything fits, but research continues - unfortunately not government funded.

This reveals a fundamental flaw in your understanding of the scientific method. Science doesn't come up with models in the absence of evidence! Observations and evidence inform the models and are either supported by further evidence (strengthening the theory) or are discarded/modified when the evidence dictates.

The difference between your flood model and evolutionary theory is that there is no evidence for the flood as described in the book of Genesis. Evolutionary theory is supported by every branch of biology and unifies them.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky

 

[Djevv]

Can you please point out my lack of critical thought on the matter. You, as someone with exposure to the sciences, understand the seriousness of such an allegation. You have so far indicated that you are rather ignorant of the latest findings relevant to this debate and continue to cite outdated and debunked creationist literature on the topic. You call me uncritical :?!?

You refer to Macro-evolution as a 'fact'. When has it been directly observed?

You are referring to so-called "Just So Stories" that are the target of extreme criticism in evolutionary biology....yes, some scientists do postulate such explanations, but these are not accepted as probable until enough corroborating evidence supports, or otherwise debunks it. To suggest that evolutionary biologists are neither wary, nor critical of such explanations, is again an extremely arrogant stance IMO.

You also refer to the power of peer review, self criticism and revision that science is capable of. Again, I will say that this is the power of the scientific method, not a weakness. Currently accepted scientific theories are our best estimate of the natural state of things. If you have evidence to discredit these theories you are more than welcome to present it. Arguments from incredulity don't really meet that burden.

Fine, they are aware, I would hope so. But 'Just so stories' still abound in this field. Especially when the media get involved.

So youR incredulity about creationist claims similarly carry no weight?

??? You think the automobile looks like it evolved under its own steam....come down to Geelong or Broadmeadows and I'll set you straight on that one.

Are you pretending to misunderstand me in order to take a cheap shot?

I addressed this above. You haven't presented anything that casts any doubt on the evidence supporting evolutionary theory. Just pointed out that some scientific theories have been discarded or required revision as the evidence dictated. The power of the scientific process in action and our knowledge is better for it. Your supernatural beliefs aren't open to such critical evaluation, nor revision.

Yep, but I was pointing out that peer review is no guarantee that the Theory is correct.

What have my beliefs got to do with this? I don't believe your materialism is open to review either. There is plenty of evidence for the supernatural - you just ignore it.

 

[Djevv]

This reveals a fundamental flaw in your understanding of the scientific method. Science doesn't come up with models in the absence of evidence! Observations and evidence inform the models and are either supported by further evidence (strengthening the theory) or are discarded/modified when the evidence dictates.

The difference between your flood model and evolutionary theory is that there is no evidence for the flood as described in the book of Genesis. Evolutionary theory is supported by every branch of biology and unifies them.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky

Rot. There is evidence of a flood, and research to prove that large thicknesses of sediements can be laid down quickly! All geologists are aware of this. Youv'e also got most fossils formed by cataclysic events which kill and bury them. Very few fossils are found in life positions. Further, the Earth was uniformly warm prior to the Quaternary - a fact that is easily explained by flood arguments but not by evolution - remember the present is the key to the past.

Sheesh! Science makes all sorts of hypothesis which roughly fit the facts then tests them. Later they are modified to become Theorems. At the moment Creationists are in the midst of this process. If you think they never modify their ideas, then it is you who are ignorant. You can mock them and say they have formed a priori conclusions and tried to modify the facts, but this is patently false. This is what Hoaxers do! What Creationists do is take the facts that have been researched by others, and re-interpret them (if possible) to fit their alternative model. If the facts don't fit, the model is changed. As far as I can see there is nothing wrong with this as science.

Heres another quote for you:

"Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species."
-Dr. Etheridge, senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, cited in Dr. Scott Huse, The Collapse of Evolution.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

You refer to Macro-evolution as a 'fact'. When has it been directly observed?

Events such as speciation have been directly observed. There are plenty of reviews on this topic. The talk.origins site has a number of reviews that discuss this very matter.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

I strongly urge you to read these.

Fine, they are aware, I would hope so. But 'Just so stories' still abound in this field. Especially when the media get involved.

What has the media got to do with scientific findings? We would probably both agree that media 'pumping up' scientific discoveries is a problem...but any scientist who bases their opinions on media releases isn't going to be that great a scientist.

If you read the literature you would know that these matters are discussed, extensively. There isn't some secret plot to exclude creationist ideas...they exclude themselves as they don't have the evidence to support them and in many cases are directly disproven by the evidence.

So youR incredulity about creationist claims similarly carry no weight?

No, the difference is that I do read creationist literature and am able to discount based on their broad claims, missing evidence and faulty logic. As demonstrated above and in your previous posting on the matter, you incredulity comes from a failure to read the scientific literature. Your arguments are largely from ignorance of modern evolutionary theory.

Are you pretending to misunderstand me in order to take a cheap shot?

No, I just don't think it is a good example of what you are trying to demonstrate. I KNOW cars are 'intelligently designed' because I can observe it in action.

Yep, but I was pointing out that peer review is no guarantee that the Theory is correct.

No, it is a best effort to achieve the closest we can to the truth, given the evidence. Do you think faith is a better method for ascertaining the truth? If so, show me where faith-based beliefs have improved our understanding of the natural world.

What have my beliefs got to do with this? I don't believe your materialism is open to review either. There is plenty of evidence for the supernatural - you just ignore it.

I wait in eager anticipation for scientifically-valid evidence of supernatural phenomena (which by definition don't exist - if they do exist they are part of the natural world, and thus, not supernatural).

Rot. There is evidence of a flood, and research to prove that large thicknesses of sediements can be laid down quickly! All geologists are aware of this. Youv'e also got most fossils formed by cataclysic events which kill and bury them. Very few fossils are found in life positions. Further, the Earth was uniformly warm prior to the Quaternary - a fact that is easily explained by flood arguments but not by evolution - remember the present is the key to the past.

Yes there is some evidence of floods in the area of the planet where the bible was written. The global flood, as described in the book of Genesis is not supported by the evidence. Why are species always found in different geological layers that follow the predictions made by evolutionary theory. You would think that a global flood would have led to mixing of all of the species that were wiped out in a single layer...this is not borne out by the evidence.

As for a warm earth...this has nothing to do with evolutionary theory which is strictly about changes in biological populations over time. How does this support your flood argument.....do you subscribe to the (i)hydroplate, (ii)runaway subduction, (iii)vapor canopy or (iv)comet explanation for the global flood? All of these have been thoroughly debunked by examination of the evidence.

Sheesh! Science makes all sorts of hypothesis which roughly fit the facts then tests them. Later they are modified to become Theorems. At the moment Creationists are in the midst of this process. If you think they never modify their ideas, then it is you who are ignorant. You can mock them and say they have formed a priori conclusions and tried to modify the facts, but this is patently false. This is what Hoaxers do! What Creationists do is take the facts that have been researched by others, and re-interpret them (if possible) to fit their alternative model. If the facts don't fit, the model is changed. As far as I can see there is nothing wrong with this as science.

Which facts underpin creationist hypotheses? What are these testable hypotheses that creationist are in the midst of testing? THAT is the difference. Scientific hypotheses are based on observable evidence and make falsifiable predictions.

As for creationist changing their ideas...it is true they do change their ideas, but only in the face of incontrovertible evidence. Why would the 'facts' surrounding creation of the earth by an omnipotent creator need revision? How long will this process take....2000 years and counting? Unless you can show me the evidence that supports their hypotheses, then of course I will point out that they have a priori conclusions. The bottom line is that they have made such conclusions and are trying in an ever-futile manner to maintain those conclusions in the face of ever-growing contradictory evidence.

If you can't see why the work of creationist-scientists is not anti-science...they have a conclusion that they are trying to support (anti-science), they don't make falsifiable predictions (anti-science), they don't publish their findings in scientific literature and open them to peer-review (anti-science), they don't point out the flaws in evolutionary theories, nor show why their model is more valid (anti science) etc etc.

Heres another quote for you:

"Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species."
-Dr. Etheridge, senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, cited in Dr. Scott Huse, The Collapse of Evolution.

I thought the infamous Dr. Etheridge might make an appearance in our quote-fest :hihi:

The widely touted “Dr. Etheridge, of the British Museum,” who always appeared in creationist literature without a given name, was quoted by Townsend as saying, “In all this great museum there is not a particle of evidence transmutation of species. Nine-tenths of the talk of evolution is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by fact. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views.” The content of Etheridge’s statement varied from work to work, and its source remained unidentified, except for Alexander Patterson’s comment that Etheridge was answering a question put to him by a Dr. George E. Post. When curious parties in the 1920s inquired about the identity of Etheridge, the director of the British Museum surmised that the man in question was “Robert Etheridge, Junr., who was Assistant Keeper of Geology in this Museum from 1881 to 1891,” at which time he left for Australia, where he died in 1920. The director hastened to add that “Mr. Etheridge’s opinion on this subject should not be considered as in any way representing scientific opinion in this Museum.”

Ronald L. Numbers. The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism. Berkeley: The University of California Press. 1992. P. 52.

and

There were two Etheridges at the British Museum
of Natural History. They were Robert Etheridge
and Robert Etheridge Jr. They were both there
as Assistant Keepers in the 1880's. The last
one, Robert Etheridge Jr., was there from 1881-1887
before leaving to move to Australia. I have yet to
find out when Robert Etheridge Senior left.
However, it was very likely before the turn of
the century.

The term "transmutation of species" is a dead
giveaway that this is probably a 19th century
quote. This quote is without any meaning as
far as current knowledge of evolution is
concerned. It is of only of interest to people
interested in what people thought of evolution
over a hundred years ago.

An apparent source of this quote is an anti-
evolution tract, Dr. Scott Huse's book "The
Collapse of Evolution." He cites a "Dr. Etheridge,
senior paleontologist of the British Museum of
Natural History." It is amazing how creationists
have promoted "Etheridge" from an assistant
keeper to senior paleontologist and, now,
world-famous paleontologist.

Huse has the quote footnoted, and gives as his source
as "Lindsay, Gordon. Evolution -- The Incredible
Hoax, Christ for the Nations, Dallas, Texas, 1977,
p. 16." I have not been able to find this source.

Yours,

Keith Littleton

 

[Djevv]

Events such as speciation have been directly observed. There are plenty of reviews on this topic. The talk.origins site has a number of reviews that discuss this very matter.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

I strongly urge you to read these.

Read 'em and....... I know the folks at Talk origins believe in evolution. I also know that speciation events by micro-evolution have happened. I know Macro-Evolution is inferred by the fossil record. Tell me when it has been observed.

If you read the literature you would know that these matters are discussed, extensively. There isn't some secret plot to exclude creationist ideas...they exclude themselves as they don't have the evidence to support them and in many cases are directly disproven by the evidence.

Or more research is required. Research is expensive.....

No, the difference is that I do read creationist literature and am able to discount based on their broad claims, missing evidence and faulty logic. As demonstrated above and in your previous posting on the matter, you incredulity comes from a failure to read the scientific literature. Your arguments are largely from ignorance of modern evolutionary theory.

I read (generally) what I am given to read on here. I remember having a long discussion about a certain bacteria which failed to macro-evolve when placed under the most favorable conditions. Surely if macro-evolution (ie new genetic info) occured we would have seen it in bacteria?

No, I just don't think it is a good example of what you are trying to demonstrate. I KNOW cars are 'intelligently designed' because I can observe it in action.

What if you didn't know, and found cars from different 'ages' in different layers of a dump?

No, it is a best effort to achieve the closest we can to the truth, given the evidence. Do you think faith is a better method for ascertaining the truth? If so, show me where faith-based beliefs have improved our understanding of the natural world.

Science is faith based, as we must have faith in laws which always operate for it to work. Religions often give social cohesion, and order to society and also provide a moral imperative.

I wait in eager anticipation for scientifically-valid evidence of supernatural phenomena (which by definition don't exist - if they do exist they are part of the natural world, and thus, not supernatural).

So a bloke walking on water and healing incurable diseases is a natural occurance? How about angels singing to a bunch of shepherds? Ghosts? Evo posted an accound of a strange miracle a while back. Go and have a look and explain it from a naturalistic pt of view.

Yes there is some evidence of floods in the area of the planet where the bible was written. The global flood, as described in the book of Genesis is not supported by the evidence. Why are species always found in different geological layers that follow the predictions made by evolutionary theory. You would think that a global flood would have led to mixing of all of the species that were wiped out in a single layer...this is not borne out by the evidence.

As for a warm earth...this has nothing to do with evolutionary theory which is strictly about changes in biological populations over time. How does this support your flood argument.....do you subscribe to the (i)hydroplate, (ii)runaway subduction, (iii)vapor canopy or (iv)comet explanation for the global flood? All of these have been thoroughly debunked by examination of the evidence.

There is no uniformatarian reason why there should be an 'ice-age' just recently(geologically speaking) and not regularly throughout earth history (as inferred by fossil & Geological evidence). Hydro-dynamic sorting - nearly all fossils are marine invertebrates. I liked the look of hyro-plate - but I need to read more.

Which facts underpin creationist hypotheses? What are these testable hypotheses that creationist are in the midst of testing? THAT is the difference. Scientific hypotheses are based on observable evidence and make falsifiable predictions.

As for creationist changing their ideas...it is true they do change their ideas, but only in the face of incontrovertible evidence. Why would the 'facts' surrounding creation of the earth by an omnipotent creator need revision? How long will this process take....2000 years and counting? Unless you can show me the evidence that supports their hypotheses, then of course I will point out that they have a priori conclusions. The bottom line is that they have made such conclusions and are trying in an ever-futile manner to maintain those conclusions in the face of ever-growing contradictory evidence.

I maintain they are researching all possible ways that the findings of modern science can be fitted to a flood model. A really good model has not been found yet. As you keep saying that their claims are not falsifiable and yet have been rebutted, well you can't have it both ways. The basic fact of there being a Creator being responsible for the Earth as we find it is not open to question, but neither in your cosmology is the Laws of Nature being responsible for everything. The mystery is how did occur which explains all the evidence.

I think you Materialists miss the point that Evolution must explain absolutely everything to be viable, not just organic evolution. You never seem to see that the assembling of atoms into immensely complex creatures without any intelligence or planning is stupendously unlikely. For such an occurance to be regarded as factual you would need a mountain of absolutely incontravertable proof. On top of that you have stars, galaxies, planets and heavy elements all self assembling. Sorry I haven't found any of the evidence 'extraordinary' so I must go with the more likely explanation that intelligence plans and organises (as we all observe every day).

BTW most of the 'ever growing' body of evidence you cite is regularly and convincingly debunked in the creationist literature.

If you can't see why the work of creationist-scientists is not anti-science...they have a conclusion that they are trying to support (anti-science), they don't make falsifiable predictions (anti-science), they don't publish their findings in scientific literature and open them to peer-review (anti-science), they don't point out the flaws in evolutionary theories, nor show why their model is more valid (anti science) etc etc.

I thought the infamous Dr. Etheridge might make an appearance in our quote-fest :hihi:

OK you got me there , although I agree with the eminent (or not so eminent) Dr Etheridge's comment though. I had mis-read the name as Eldridge.

Heres the one I was looking for:

‘I admit that an awful lot of that has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs (in the American Museum) is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we’ve got science as truth and we’ve got a problem.’

– Dr. Niles Eldredge, curator at the American Museum of Natural History

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Read 'em and....... I know the folks at Talk origins believe in evolution. I also know that speciation events by micro-evolution have happened. I know Macro-Evolution is inferred by the fossil record. Tell me when it has been observed.

The folks at talk.origins believe in evolution because of the evidence (verifiable) that they present and review at that website. Do you have any rebuttal to the data presented, or just a "they are evolutionists, what do you expect" response?

The concepts of micro- and macro-evolution are a matter of time and scale. Macroevolution describes changes above the species level and are the accumulation of changes that occur at the 'micro' level. Yes, macro evolution is inferred by the fossil record, but also by physiological data, biochemical data, embryological data, developmental biology and molecular data. How do you explain the distribution of the fossil record? How do you explain 'imperfect design' in related organisms? How do you explain similarities in embryological development in vertebrates that may not appear so similar at the juvenile and adult stages of development? How do you explain the presence of viral DNA and other parasitic DNA insertion sites at the same positions within the genomes of related species that correlate exactly with phylogenetic trees?

Or more research is required. Research is expensive.....

More research? How about any research...well peer-reviewed research. Research is expensive? Please. I am a young scientist on a very limited budget in the relatively expensive area of molecular biology research, yet I still publish papers in peer reviewed journals.

I would suggest the problem is the lack of research, or the quality/validity of the research, rather than a budgetary issue.

I read (generally) what I am given to read on here. I remember having a long discussion about a certain bacteria which failed to macro-evolve when placed under the most favorable conditions. Surely if macro-evolution (ie new genetic info) occured we would have seen it in bacteria?

As mentioned above macroevolution describes changes above the species level. The evolution of novel traits (I assume this is what you mean by new genetic info) is described in a number of papers reviewed in the links I provided in my previous post. An example off the top of my head would be the evolution of novel functions of the pvu protein in HIV since its divergence from SIV and infection of humans. It is a clear example of a novel function for a protein that previously served a different function in the different environment of its host (human cells vs chimp cells). These types of changes when added up and prevented from gene flow between another population will eventually lead to the patterns we observe in the diversity of life on this planet.

What if you didn't know, and found cars from different 'ages' in different layers of a dump?

So you are saying that the fossil record is evidence of God's development of life on this planet? As for cars, they don't have a mechanism of self-replication, nor do they have a mechanism for changing their mechanics intrinsically....biological organisms do self-replicate and they have a mechanism for change. I think your analogy needs some work.

Science is faith based, as we must have faith in laws which always operate for it to work. Religions often give social cohesion, and order to society and also provide a moral imperative.

We have to trust in the laws of physics, yes, but these are supported by observation and have the power to make predictions which have thus far been borne out in observations. This is quite a great deal different from religious faith, which has a very poor track record in this area.

As for the social implications of religion, I find that to be an interesting area. These social benefits may explain the occurrence of supernatural beliefs across most of the planet and may have played an important role in the organisation of early humans. This says nothing about the validity of the often contradictory supernatural beliefs held by these religions. The social benefits, or so-called horizontal effects, of religion can be quite good and I find them rather appealing, however these are more than offset by the negative impacts of the so-called vertical effects, or irrational supernatural beliefs, that go hand in hand with them.

So a bloke walking on water and healing incurable diseases is a natural occurance? How about angels singing to a bunch of shepherds? Ghosts? Evo posted an accound of a strange miracle a while back. Go and have a look and explain it from a naturalistic pt of view.

You provide compelling evidence of these occurences, as opposed to ancient stories, and I might change my mind. BTW if a bloke did walk on water, it would be a natural occurence. Supernatural occurences cannot be explained. Anything that happens in this universe is natural, by definition.

There is no uniformatarian reason why there should be an 'ice-age' just recently(geologically speaking) and not regularly throughout earth history (as inferred by fossil & Geological evidence). Hydro-dynamic sorting - nearly all fossils are marine invertebrates. I liked the look of hyro-plate - but I need to read more.

So how do you explain the recent ice age? There have been regular ice ages throughout earth's history, followed by interglacial periods.

If you do decide to subscribe to the hydroplate theory of a Genesis global flood make sure you address these issues first (from Wikipedia):

* that the rock that makes up the earth's crust does not float, so that the water would have been forced to the surface long before the Genesis flood.
* that even two miles deep (far above the hypothesised depth), the earth is boiling hot (260 to 270 degrees C at 5.656 miles in one borehole; Bram et al. 1995), resulting in a superheated reservoir of water and temperatures that would not have been survivable.
* that the waters would have eroded the sides of the fissures through which they were escaping, producing poorly sorted basaltic erosional deposits. These would be concentrated mainly near the fissures, but some would be shot thousands of miles along with the water. Such deposits would be quite noticeable but have never been seen.

I maintain they are researching all possible ways that the findings of modern science can be fitted to a flood model. A really good model has not been found yet. As you keep saying that their claims are not falsifiable and yet have been rebutted, well you can't have it both ways. The basic fact of there being a Creator being responsible for the Earth as we find it is not open to question, but neither in your cosmology is the Laws of Nature being responsible for everything. The mystery is how did occur which explains all the evidence.

Why are you looking for a model if there is no evidence to support such a model! That is not a scientific approach.

When I say the don't make falisfiable predictions, I am stating that the claims cdon't make predictions that can be supported or not and thus are non-scientific. Often the evidence that we already have contradicts the claims of creationists or the logic utilised in their arguments is flawed. This is what is meant by debunking creationist claims.

Well our explanations for the universe do differ in that you have a omnipotent creator with no evidence to support their existence and has consistently been found to be unnecessary as an explanation for natural phenomena as new evidence comes to light. I am happy to say that there are some things that we don't know all of the details about.....we can come up with models that fit what we know about the origins, but we have to be happy to continue to explore and fill in the gaps as we can.

I think you Materialists miss the point that Evolution must explain absolutely everything to be viable, not just organic evolution. You never seem to see that the assembling of atoms into immensely complex creatures without any intelligence or planning is stupendously unlikely. For such an occurance to be regarded as factual you would need a mountain of absolutely incontravertable proof. On top of that you have stars, galaxies, planets and heavy elements all self assembling. Sorry I haven't found any of the evidence 'extraordinary' so I must go with the more likely explanation that intelligence plans and organises (as we all observe every day).

No...evolution only explains the diversity of life on this planet...that is it. The evidence in support of this is considerable and should be judged on its own merits. Do you discard all scientific findings because there are still questions that we don't have clear answers on...of course not. Why do you apply this requirement to evolution?

BTW most of the 'ever growing' body of evidence you cite is regularly and convincingly debunked in the creationist literature.

You provide me with specific examples and I will be happy to discuss them.

OK you got me there , although I agree with the eminent (or not so eminent) Dr Etheridge's comment though. I had mis-read the name as Eldridge.

Heres the one I was looking for:

‘I admit that an awful lot of that has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs (in the American Museum) is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we’ve got science as truth and we’ve got a problem.’

– Dr. Niles Eldredge, curator at the American Museum of Natural History

Eldredge is not disputing evolution in this quote. He is stating that we have to be wary against acceptance of facts without critical evaluation, sage advice. If the model of horse evolution that he is referring to is inaccurate, it should be remedied...with a more accurate model (which does exist).

 

[Six Pack]

gee u go to work, come home, and it takes all night to read the latest!

 

[Djevv]

The folks at talk.origins believe in evolution because of the evidence (verifiable) that they present and review at that website. Do you have any rebuttal to the data presented, or just a "they are evolutionists, what do you expect" response?

The concepts of micro- and macro-evolution are a matter of time and scale. Macroevolution describes changes above the species level and are the accumulation of changes that occur at the 'micro' level. Yes, macro evolution is inferred by the fossil record, but also by physiological data, biochemical data, embryological data, developmental biology and molecular data. How do you explain the distribution of the fossil record? How do you explain 'imperfect design' in related organisms? How do you explain similarities in embryological development in vertebrates that may not appear so similar at the juvenile and adult stages of development? How do you explain the presence of viral DNA and other parasitic DNA insertion sites at the same positions within the genomes of related species that correlate exactly with phylogenetic trees?

More research? How about any research...well peer-reviewed research. Research is expensive? Please. I am a young scientist on a very limited budget in the relatively expensive area of molecular biology research, yet I still publish papers in peer reviewed journals.

I would suggest the problem is the lack of research, or the quality/validity of the research, rather than a budgetary issue.

As mentioned above macroevolution describes changes above the species level. The evolution of novel traits (I assume this is what you mean by new genetic info) is described in a number of papers reviewed in the links I provided in my previous post. An example off the top of my head would be the evolution of novel functions of the pvu protein in HIV since its divergence from SIV and infection of humans. It is a clear example of a novel function for a protein that previously served a different function in the different environment of its host (human cells vs chimp cells). These types of changes when added up and prevented from gene flow between another population will eventually lead to the patterns we observe in the diversity of life on this planet.

So you are saying that the fossil record is evidence of God's development of life on this planet? As for cars, they don't have a mechanism of self-replication, nor do they have a mechanism for changing their mechanics intrinsically....biological organisms do self-replicate and they have a mechanism for change. I think your analogy needs some work.

We have to trust in the laws of physics, yes, but these are supported by observation and have the power to make predictions which have thus far been borne out in observations. This is quite a great deal different from religious faith, which has a very poor track record in this area.

As for the social implications of religion, I find that to be an interesting area. These social benefits may explain the occurrence of supernatural beliefs across most of the planet and may have played an important role in the organisation of early humans. This says nothing about the validity of the often contradictory supernatural beliefs held by these religions. The social benefits, or so-called horizontal effects, of religion can be quite good and I find them rather appealing, however these are more than offset by the negative impacts of the so-called vertical effects, or irrational supernatural beliefs, that go hand in hand with them.

You provide compelling evidence of these occurences, as opposed to ancient stories, and I might change my mind. BTW if a bloke did walk on water, it would be a natural occurence. Supernatural occurences cannot be explained. Anything that happens in this universe is natural, by definition.

So how do you explain the recent ice age? There have been regular ice ages throughout earth's history, followed by interglacial periods.

If you do decide to subscribe to the hydroplate theory of a Genesis global flood make sure you address these issues first (from Wikipedia):

* that the rock that makes up the earth's crust does not float, so that the water would have been forced to the surface long before the Genesis flood.
* that even two miles deep (far above the hypothesised depth), the earth is boiling hot (260 to 270 degrees C at 5.656 miles in one borehole; Bram et al. 1995), resulting in a superheated reservoir of water and temperatures that would not have been survivable.
* that the waters would have eroded the sides of the fissures through which they were escaping, producing poorly sorted basaltic erosional deposits. These would be concentrated mainly near the fissures, but some would be shot thousands of miles along with the water. Such deposits would be quite noticeable but have never been seen.


Why are you looking for a model if there is no evidence to support such a model! That is not a scientific approach.

When I say the don't make falisfiable predictions, I am stating that the claims cdon't make predictions that can be supported or not and thus are non-scientific. Often the evidence that we already have contradicts the claims of creationists or the logic utilised in their arguments is flawed. This is what is meant by debunking creationist claims.

Well our explanations for the universe do differ in that you have a omnipotent creator with no evidence to support their existence and has consistently been found to be unnecessary as an explanation for natural phenomena as new evidence comes to light. I am happy to say that there are some things that we don't know all of the details about.....we can come up with models that fit what we know about the origins, but we have to be happy to continue to explore and fill in the gaps as we can.

No...evolution only explains the diversity of life on this planet...that is it. The evidence in support of this is considerable and should be judged on its own merits. Do you discard all scientific findings because there are still questions that we don't have clear answers on...of course not. Why do you apply this requirement to evolution?

You provide me with specific examples and I will be happy to discuss them.

Eldredge is not disputing evolution in this quote. He is stating that we have to be wary against acceptance of facts without critical evaluation, sage advice. If the model of horse evolution that he is referring to is inaccurate, it should be remedied...with a more accurate model (which does exist).

OK, I get it, I need to find enough evidence to convince you. I have tried. As I said all of the data on evolutionary sites are dealt with on creationist sites. I guess it depends who you believe. I am not an expert in every area of science, although as a teacher you have to be a bit of a jack of all trades. For me the sticking point is simply getting over the impossibility factor. You seem to think impossible things are possible given long periods of time, I don't. A lot of the evidence you cite to me seems fairly irrelevant; I know about it, and it was not really much different to when I did my studies. Your example of a macro-evolutionary change is interesting - but I would need to read more. I find it very difficult to believe things that seem to me impossible actually happen unless they are independently verified under controlled conditions. A bit like you and God.

On the topic I do know something about, ice ages, there is only one we know for sure about - that is the quaternary to about 3mya. There are a few others hypothesised. But the Earth is interpreted to have been uniformly warm for virtually all the time prior to this. My idea here was why such a dramatic change only relatively recently?

The stuff about the evolution of everything I think is a valid point. As a materialist you need to explain everything without supernatural cause. While, at least the evolution of life has a mechanism (as you would expect given that life is so complex), nothing else on the evolutionary spectrum seem to have one. To me to completely discount the existance of God on this basis would seem to be a faith position as well.

A final point I wish to make is about being anti-science. I think that accusation is very unfair. Unusual ideas are grist for the mill in the history of scientific thought. Lots of them ended up being accepted at a later date. Other well supported ideas fall by the wayside. I don't think it is wrong or unscientific to try to support the Bible using science - this is really all creationists do. Often in scientific fields, such as archaeology, the bible has proved to be a valuable resource.

At the end of the day I don't have all the answers, but I am not unhappy with that state of affairs. It leaves room for growth and discovery.

 

[evo]

Are you a science teacher Djevv?

Lord have mercy!!!

 

[Djevv]

Are you a science teacher Djevv?

Lord have mercy!!!

Its a living!! Happens to a lot of old Geos.

I work at a great school too, and have a senior position, which allows me to waste too much time reading this site .

BTW what are you learning at philosophy school ATM?

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

OK, I get it, I need to find enough evidence to convince you. I have tried. As I said all of the data on evolutionary sites are dealt with on creationist sites. I guess it depends who you believe. I am not an expert in every area of science, although as a teacher you have to be a bit of a jack of all trades. For me the sticking point is simply getting over the impossibility factor. You seem to think impossible things are possible given long periods of time, I don't. A lot of the evidence you cite to me seems fairly irrelevant; I know about it, and it was not really much different to when I did my studies. Your example of a macro-evolutionary change is interesting - but I would need to read more. I find it very difficult to believe things that seem to me impossible actually happen unless they are independently verified under controlled conditions. A bit like you and God.

I am well aware of many of the arguments that you have discovered on creationist websites. I am more than happy to discuss any of these so-called counter arguments with you. When you say it just a matter of believing one or the other you disregard the weight of evidence in support of evolution and the paucity of verifiable evidence for the creationist position. It is this imbalance that makes it not just a case of believing one side or the other.

You freely admit that you are not an expert in the field of biology, yet you freely dismiss the well established theories that have involved painstaking research by countless biologists, experts in the field, for decades and decades. I personally feel that is an arrogant position to take...not that you can't come up with your own theories, but to dismiss them without pointing out the flaws in their work, nor providing a better model does not represent a persuasive argument.

Your 'impossibility factor' is an argument from incredulity and ignorance, as the issues of the time required to explain the diversity of life on this planet has been raised since Darwin's time and is covered in most introductory evolution and ecology textbooks. It is easy to forget the power of mutation rates and population sizes to produce vast quantities of variation for evolutionary processes to act upon and diversify biological populations. Just because you struggle to comprehend that (and I do understand the problem....however as some with training in geology I assumed you would have a better handle on geological timescales) does not make not true....the mathematics in this area provides clear proof that it is possible.

I would be interested to know which arguments you felt were irrelevant to the issues of micro- vs. macro-evolution. I do recommend that you read that article on macroevolution on the talk.origins website. It is interesting and does show the evidence supporting this universally accepted fact (at least in biological spheres) so that you don't have to take my word for it (no scientist should ever use that phrase if they want to be taken seriously) but can look at the data for yourself. If upon analysing the evidence you see flaws, point them out....that is the scientific method....not just saying "I just don't believe it".

On the topic I do know something about, ice ages, there is only one we know for sure about - that is the quaternary to about 3mya. There are a few others hypothesised. But the Earth is interpreted to have been uniformly warm for virtually all the time prior to this. My idea here was why such a dramatic change only relatively recently?

Not being a geologist I will tread more carefully in this area, but my reading would suggest that at least 4 ice ages are known throughout the history of this planet...based on ice core data (http://www.up.ethz.ch/people/flueckiger/publications/epica04nat.pdf).....that isn't hypothetical data, that is hard data from physical evidence. As to the forces leading to these changes, a number of potential causes have been raised including (i) atmospheric conditions, (ii) positioning of the continents, (iii) variation in the earth's orbit, (iv) fluctuations in the energy output of the sun and (v) volcanic activity (from Wikipedia).

My question is how does this relate to the creationist position? What predictions of the creationist 'theories' are borne out by this data?

The stuff about the evolution of everything I think is a valid point. As a materialist you need to explain everything without supernatural cause. While, at least the evolution of life has a mechanism (as you would expect given that life is so complex), nothing else on the evolutionary spectrum seem to have one. To me to completely discount the existance of God on this basis would seem to be a faith position as well.

No, they are completely irrelevant. You are trying to shift this argument from one over the validity of biological evolution as a theory to one of materialist philosophical position. That is another debate. Yes, evolution from common descent is a materialist theory (all scientific theories are) but the origins of life, origins of the universe etc. are completely irrelevant to the overwhelming evidence supporting the fact that species have evolved by common descent. If I am not mistaken, your quote above admits as much: "at least the evolution of life has a mechanism (as you would expect given that life is so complex)", however you seem to be trying to shift the argument areas where scientific theories aren't supported by quite so much evidence. A 'God of the Gaps' approach...ie. you have to explain everything, otherwise your position is based on as much faith as mine. This is blatantly false. The theories surrounding biological evolution stand well enough on the countless lines of evidence supporting this fact.

A final point I wish to make is about being anti-science. I think that accusation is very unfair. Unusual ideas are grist for the mill in the history of scientific thought. Lots of them ended up being accepted at a later date. Other well supported ideas fall by the wayside. I don't think it is wrong or unscientific to try to support the Bible using science - this is really all creationists do. Often in scientific fields, such as archaeology, the bible has proved to be a valuable resource.

I agree, questioning accepted theories is a healthy and necessary part of the scientific process and has led to great leaps in our understanding of the natural world....but these have always followed the scientific method! What observations have been made that clearly support the bible? What falsifiable predictions are made by the bible? How can these be tested? What about data that contradicts the information written in the bible? Does that discredit the book, or just the story?

The bible is a book written by numerous authors over a long period time in a small part of earth, partially based on historic events of the time. It is no wonder that some areas of archaeology involving study of that time and location are going to be borne out in that book. It says nothing as to the validity of the supernatural claims made in that book. Remember the maxim: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Words written in a book of questionable origin don't meet that burden of proof.

At the end of the day I don't have all the answers, but I am not unhappy with that state of affairs. It leaves room for growth and discovery.

Agree 100% As to how we go about finding those answers, I will side with science, it has a proven track record in this area .

 

[jayfox]

Okay, a couple of questions for the evolutionists.

1. If there was a worldwide flood as described in the Bible, (and work with me here, let's call it a hypothesis, you science nerds love those ;D), what effect would a monumental worldwide catastrophy like that have on things like carbon dating, fossil records, death of certain species (like dinosaurs etc.)? Would any of our current research be skewed if that actually was a fact?

2. Pantera, you said "I KNOW cars are 'intelligently designed' because I can observe it in action." Have you or any other person ever observed macro-evolution in action? Please don't deflect this question by quoting evidence or fossil records etc. but answer it as it was asked - Have you or any other person ever observed macro-evolution in action?

3. If there actually is a God, (again, work with me on this hypothesis), and He doesn't always work by our human -conceived scientific laws, then would that not potentially throw much scientific discovery on our origins, specifically evolution and things like carbon dating, into question? If He is not bound by these laws, which Christians believe He clearly isn't, then I would think that this would raise some questions that you refuse to ask.

I know you will probably try to debunk these questions saying there is a lack of evidence to support said theories, but I would like you to answer them genuinely, with respect to the way that they were asked.

 

[1eyedtiger]

Not sure if I should post anything with the amount I've had to drink, but it always seems the way.

1/ I believe that current research is probably skewed but a possible worldwide flood would only be one reason. Humans have a history of destroying things and it's quite possible humans have destroyed a lot of past evidence without realizing it. In fact, I think it highly probable that past humans have held conservation in very little regard when going about their business.

2/ Macro evolution. No, I haven't observed macro evolution personally. Supposedly it takes millions of years for evolution to occur. But the way I see it, a billion fish trying to jump onto land only results in a billion dead fish.
On the other hand, it is common to see viruses mutate and become resistant to antibiotics.

3/ If there is a god, as you put it, and he isn't restricted to scientific laws, then I would say yes, he(or she) could possibly alter and therefore render, many scientific discoveries invalid.

I'm not going to try and debunk your theories via lack of evidence but what do you expect? Once again, as always, it comes down to having faith in what you believe in. You can't prove it one way or the the other. Never will.

And by the way, as an atheist, I don't know why there seems to be this link between atheism and evolution. An atheist, as far as I'm concerned, doesn't believe in god and rejects organised religion. Evolution has nothing to do with it. If that puts me out in no mans land, then so be it. To be quite honest, I've got no idea where we came from. There could be any number of explanations.

Does it really matter anyway?