Two potential creation scenarios

[agnosticatheist]

Let's assume for the sake of this debate that the following premises are true:

A: The Christian God exists

B: The Christian God created the universe

Now, let's consider two possible creation scenarios.

Scenario 1: God created each species in a separate creation event.

Scenario 1 questions for debate:

1. Why would God create each species in separate creation events and yet make it appear that each species emerged from earlier lifeforms? Wouldn't that make God dishonest?

2. The Bible says that God is trustworthy; can he still be trusted if he made it look like large-scale evolution has taken place when in fact it hasn't?

3. Why would God make it look like large-scale evolution has taken place when in fact it hasn't, knowing full well that this will cause many to doubt God's existence?

Scenario 2: God created the conditions in which carbon-based lifeforms could emerge and evolve on Earth, and eventually lead to the emergence of Homo Sapiens, which God would give a soul to (and perhaps make some other minor changes to), which would result in the creation of Homo Sapiens Sapiens, or Modern Humans.

Scenario B Question for debate:

1. Why would God go to all that trouble when he could simply create each species in separate creation events?

Here's a broader set of questions that apply to both scenarios:

Why would God create lifeforms other than humans? Clearly humans are important because they "house" the human soul. But what about Wolves? Crocodiles? Crows? Gorillas?

What is the role of non-human lifeforms in God's "plan"?

Do they have souls too? Consciousness/awareness is a state that people claim is possible due to the soul.

Well, the more we observe and study the non-human natural world, the more it seems that consciousness/awareness exists on a spectrum, from human-level awareness (or perhaps higher...), down to complete non-consciousness/non-awareness (e.g. bacteria). There isn't some absolute line where life is divided between conscious and non-conscious, except for maybe at the "lower lifeform levels", but definitely not at the "higher lifeform levels". Dogs are conscious, they just aren't conscious to the same degree that humans are.

So, why create lifeforms besides humans and have consciousness exist on a spectrum?

Why would God do this knowing full well that it would cause people to question his existence?

It just seems to be such an interesting coincidence that God created lifeform consciousness on a spectrum.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 269 by Enoch2021]

I note you make a very lengthy reply, complete with images, yet your post was devoid of even a nanogram of analysis. The issue is the fact that many supporters of YEC have used dishonest means to support their claims. Quote mining appears to be the favorite technique. Your own quote mining has been well documented here. You have complained about this accusation many times; however the fact you have been exposed point by point for taking quotes out of context remains well documented.

Instead of throwing out labels and claims without documentation and analysis, I suggest you engage in the hard work of actually going thru, point by point, the arguments and factual refutations of the proofs against the evidence of what you and the others, like Hovind, have done.

No one here is buying your mere interjections of "baseless assertion" and other labels. What is your analysis? What objective facts do you have to support your claims. So far we've seen nothing substantive from you during your five months with us.

[H.sapiens]

...

As we go further down it is clear that we came from a form of bacteria. since types of bacteria have been found in the very hot underwater volcanic exhaust, it is clear to me that the process started near the center of the Earth.

What makes this clear? There are bacteria in most every environment.

....
As far as there being billions of Earths in the entire universe that is pretty clear to me and many other people.

How is this is made pretty clear?

It is also confirmed to me by my spiritual encounters who have specified that this Earth is only one of billions and that the Holocaust has occurred billions of times in the past.

You mean voices in your head? Visions? What?

Thus the events upon this Earth basically repeat forever. Which unfortunately means that we repeat forever as well. We can move upward or downward but we are trapped in space and time. I am not happy about that but I have to accept it.

Ah ... perhaps the ultimate "zen lesson."

As far as my ideas on bacteria, the science programs on tv have proposed that forms of bacteria is common to all life. Even within our own bodies we find bacteria itself. In any event if the basic life form is not exactly bacteria then it is something which produces bacteria. In any event all life started at the microscopic level.

Take if from a real scientist, not one who plays one on TV, not one who gets his information from TV ... you haven't a clue. There is/was no "basic" form of life unless you care to identify it in a clearer fashion, and it sure was not one step from this "basic form" to bacteria which are, today, highly specialized and evolved life forms.

As far as billions of Earths are concerned, this is clear to most scientists that with billions of billions of galaxies, there are billions of Earths which have the same conditions as us. therefore to a great probability, we are not alone in the universe and man exists everywhere.

That is your pipe dream. I expect life, likely not "as we know it" to be widespread, even sentient life ... but "man?" I think not, the odds of treading that precise path are too slim.

To confirm this for my own understanding, my dreams and visions showed me moving star frames leading to another Earth after I am dead. this was in response to my question of where I was going after death. thus my fate is predetermined.

Your fate is predetermined by voices that you hear and visions that you have? Jerrygg38, I like you meet Son of Sam.

It is better than the pit of hell at the center of this Earth. Evolved man came from the pit of hell in bacterial form and many of us will end up right back there are the center of this Earth. Of course the self is gone and all you have left is a bacterial soul in chaos. Thus no one suffers in hell but you do suffer on the way to hell as I have been shown in dreams and visions.

There is no evidence of what you claim. There is, however, copious evidence that the center of the Earth is a molten nickel/iron core kept hot by radioactive decay.

My encounters since age 3 to now at age 76 came about by a gentile fatherly voice when I was a child to a young adult. I would pray to God and at various times God would answer my questions. There was always help. Sometimes I asked God to help with an engineering problem and God would give me the solution. However I no longer believe that the voice was the God of the Universe. It was my soul which occupies the lower mind of God. Thus everyone has a soul which exists in the lower mind of God. Many people hear such voices. In my case I always want information. Sometimes I must wait years for the answers. It took 10 years for God or God's lower mind to answer my questions on the Holocaust.

In 1981 the Gentle voice of my friend God, demanded that I do this work. I was forced into obedience by a force field. In the end of weeks of conflict I was radiated by God and glowed for 3 days. The only comfort I could get would be to declare myself insane. Yet it is very hard for me to do so because all the basic data I got appears true to me. However I must study the data and try to understand it. I am sorry that I ever demanded an answer from God about the Holocaust. To learn a little more about god and the universe involves suffering. I was stupid and foolish to confront god on this issue. What right does man have to judge God?

I'd recommend that tell that tale to a mental health professional and get a second opinion, especially the part about your God turning you into a nightlight.

[Danmark]

I just call it the spiritual dimension. It is dimensions that do not include the three or four dimensions of this section of the total universe. It is different forms of energy. The entity that appeared before me, I could put my hand through it. It appeared like a hologram. It could have been a vision but it was certainly another dimension as best as I could understand in 1981. When I was young I would pray to God and at various times the voice of God would respond to me. the last year or so I have concluded that it was not God but my own soul within the spiritual dimension. If we go to string theory we get I believe 13 small dimensions.
....
Other than my experiences and the Biblical experiences of Jewish visionaries who wrestled with angels and the healing powers of Jesus, I could only say that there is a form of energy which could be considered spiritual energy.
One may argue that my encounters were mere hallucinations.
....
Some Christians thought I used witchcraft. All I know for sure is that there is some sort of spiritual dimension that I have communicated with all my life.Why me? It is just a Jewish gift or curse.

Jerry, how do you respond to the fact that others have had what they report as similar spiritual experiences that contradict yours? Some claim they've had spiritual experiences with the devil. Others claim they've seen Jesus and were knocked to the ground, blinded by the experience. Still others claimed they've had spiritual experiences with angels who've left them messages on metal plates.

Some have claimed they've met Jesus and he has told them he is not divine. The problem with "divine revelation" is that many people have claimed such revelations and the revelations contradict each other. Your experience and the experience of others from Ezekiel to John at Patmos to Joseph Smith and countless others CONTRADICT each other. The result is that such claims have no value. They are just as susceptible to the idea they are fantasy as the claim they are authentic. Whose fantastic claims are authentic is not subject to objective analysis. It is just as likely, perhaps more so, that none of them are believeable.

[Enoch2021]

[Replying to post 269 by Enoch2021]

I note you make a very lengthy reply, complete with images, yet your post was devoid of even a nanogram of analysis. The issue is the fact that many supporters of YEC have used dishonest means to support their claims. Quote mining appears to be the favorite technique. Your own quote mining has been well documented here. You have complained about this accusation many times; however the fact you have been exposed point by point for taking quotes out of context remains well documented.

Instead of throwing out labels and claims without documentation and analysis, I suggest you engage in the hard work of actually going thru, point by point, the arguments and factual refutations of the proofs against the evidence of what you and the others, like Hovind, have done.

No one here is buying your mere interjections of "baseless assertion" and other labels. What is your analysis? What objective facts do you have to support your claims. So far we've seen nothing substantive from you during your five months with us.

I note you make a very lengthy reply, complete with images, yet your post was devoid of even a nanogram of analysis.

Well 98% of your post was based on.....(Danmark): "There were no red blood cells present, and this speaks volumes for the respect for truth shown at Answers in Genesis Ministry."

My Rebuttal...

"--but test after test indicated that the spherical structures were indeed red blood cells from a 67-million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex." {Emphasis Mine}
Scientific American, October 2012
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/obs ... aur-cells/

What other "Analysis" would you like?

I "Analyzed" then Cataloged/Documented your 20 Logical Fallacies in the post...so there's that.

Your own quote mining has been well documented here.

Yes, Like this one, (From post 27 replying to post 23)....ref:Re: Is it fraud for Creationism and ID to claim to be scienc

Danmark: "It should also be noted that you and this blog keep trotting out a book published 44 years ago. So not only are you quote mining from it, you are not using the latest texts. This is typical of many creationist blogs."

In Response to this ...

Lets take a Look @ what evolution is by arguably the TOP evolutionist of the 20th Century (“Ernst Mayr, the world’s greatest living evolutionary biologist"---Stephen Jay Gould)....
Ernst Mayr PhD Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University...

"Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. LAWS AND EXPERIMENTS ARE INAPPROPRIATE TECHNIQUES FOR THE EXPLICATION OF SUCH EVENTS AND PROCESSES. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain." {Emphasis Mine}
Ernst Mayr, Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought; Scientific American, 24 November 2009

Which, As Evidenced By your "44 Years Ago" remark to a Quote that was published in 2009 (plainly documented in the CITATION, ....which technically was first written in the July 2000 edition of Scientific American) Unequivocally shows that you didn't even READ IT!!

the fact you have been exposed

Who's been Exposed?? Look Up!

All you have are Baseless "contrived" Charges proffered incessantly, Wholesale 3rd Party Cut and Pastes without a whiff of Analysis (This is the Poster Child...ref:Flagellum Unspun: Collapse of So Pot Meet Kettle),"Color Commentaries", and "wiki" links that you can't speak to.

All of which speak to a "Last Port In The Storm" scenario.... right out of the Gate.

Thanks for allowing me to Illustrate.

regards

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 273 by Enoch2021]
Still selectively quoting I see, and failing to give the URL for the entire article.
But even the quote you gave constitutes ZERO argument against the fact of evolution. Yes, evolutionary biology is different than physics. Was that a new idea for you?

A Secular View of Life
Darwin founded a new branch of life science, evolutionary biology. Four of his contributions to evolutionary biology are especially important, as they held considerable sway beyond that discipline. The first is the nonconstancy of species, or the modern conception of evolution itself. The second is the notion of branching evolution, implying the common descent of all species of living things on earth from a single unique origin. Up until 1859, all evolutionary proposals, such as that of naturalist Jean- Baptiste Lamarck, instead endorsed linear evolution, a teleological march toward greater perfection that had been in vogue since Aristotle’s concept of Scala Naturae, the chain of being. Darwin further noted that evolution must be gradual, with no major breaks or discontinuities. Finally, he reasoned that the mechanism of evolution was natural selection.

These four insights served as the foundation for Darwin’s founding of a new branch of the philosophy of science, a philosophy of biology. Despite the passing of a century before this new branch of philosophy fully developed, its eventual form is based on Darwinian concepts. For example, Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.
....

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... n-thought/

[Danmark]

My Rebuttal...

"--but test after test indicated that the spherical structures were indeed red blood cells from a 67-million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex." {Emphasis Mine}
Scientific American, October 2012
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/obs ... aur-cells/

Your "rebuttal" does not indicate anything to suggest the soft tissue was not from a 67 million year old T-Rex. Here's a more recent article where Mary Schweitzer shows how the the tissue was preserved for such a long time:

The controversial discovery of 68-million-year-old soft tissue from the bones of a Tyrannosaurus rex finally has a physical explanation. According to new research, iron in the dinosaur's body preserved the tissue before it could decay.

The research, headed by Mary Schweitzer, a molecular paleontologist at North Carolina State University, explains how proteins — and possibly even DNA — can survive millennia. Schweitzer and her colleagues first raised this question in 2005, when they found the seemingly impossible: soft tissue preserved inside the leg of an adolescent T. rex unearthed in Montana.

"What we found was unusual, because it was still soft and still transparent and still flexible," Schweitzer told LiveScience. [See Images of a Near-Complete T. rex]

The find was also controversial, because scientists had thought proteins that make up soft tissue should degrade in less than 1 million years in the best of conditions. In most cases, microbes feast on a dead animal's soft tissue, destroying it within weeks. The tissue must be something else, perhaps the product of a later bacterial invasion, critics argued.

Then, in 2007, Schweitzer and her colleagues analyzed the chemistry of the T. rex proteins. They found the proteins really did come from dinosaur soft tissue. The tissue was collagen, they reported in the journal Science, and it shared similarities with bird collagen — which makes sense, as modern birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs such as T. rex.

The researchers also analyzed other fossils for the presence of soft tissue, and found it was present in about half of their samples going back to the Jurassic Period, which lasted from 145.5 million to 199.6 million years ago, Schweitzer said.

"The problem is, for 300 years, we thought, 'Well, the organics are all gone, so why should we look for something that's not going to be there?' and nobody looks," she said.

The obvious question, though, was how soft, pliable tissue could survive for millions of years. In a new study published today (Nov. 26) in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, Schweitzer thinks she has the answer: Iron.

Iron lady

Iron is an element present in abundance in the body, particularly in the blood, where it is part of the protein that carries oxygen from the lungs to the tissues. Iron is also highly reactive with other molecules, so the body keeps it locked up tight, bound to molecules that prevent it from wreaking havoc on the tissues.

After death, though, iron is let free from its cage. It forms minuscule iron nanoparticles and also generates free radicals, which are highly reactive molecules thought to be involved in aging.

"The free radicals cause proteins and cell membranes to tie in knots," Schweitzer said. "They basically act like formaldehyde."

Formaldehyde, of course, preserves tissue. It works by linking up, or cross-linking, the amino acids that make up proteins, which makes those proteins more resistant to decay.

Schweitzer and her colleagues found that dinosaur soft tissue is closely associated with iron nanoparticles in both the T. rex and another soft-tissue specimen from Brachylophosaurus canadensis, a type of duck-billed dinosaur. They then tested the iron-as-preservative idea using modern ostrich blood vessels. They soaked one group of blood vessels in iron-rich liquid made of red blood cells and another group in water. The blood vessels left in water turned into a disgusting mess within days. The blood vessels soaked in red blood cells remain recognizable after sitting at room temperature for two years.

Searching for soft tissue

Dinosaurs' iron-rich blood, combined with a good environment for fossilization, may explain the amazing existence of soft tissue from the Cretaceous (a period that lasted from about 65.5 million to 145.5 million years ago) and even earlier. The specimens Schweitzer works with, including skin, show evidence of excellent preservation. The bones of these various specimens are articulated, not scattered, suggesting they were buried quickly. They're also buried in sandstone, which is porous and may wick away bacteria and reactive enzymes that would otherwise degrade the bone.

[emphasis applied]
http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html

Your 6000 year old Earth "theory" is going to need more quote mining to "support" it. I can't wait for the next installment.

[Enoch2021]

I'm glad you recognize m2m as a pejorative, for a feeble idea the is immanently worthy of such treatment.

If evolution could be described as microbes to men, then it would be worthy of such treatment. However, this discription is one that is made by those ignorant of what evolution is all about. Humanity is not the end point nor the goal of the evolutionary process. Evolution is a blind aimless process, like erosion. Erosion did not set about to create the Grand Canyon. Evolution did not set about to create humans. It is not microbes to men, but microbes to every living entity on the planet.

It boils down to this: "we think those rocks are very old. We think that, because they have been unchanged for a long time -- generations -- and therefore, they must have formed by very, very slow processes.

This is an ignorant characterization of modern geology.

However, this discription is one that is made by those ignorant of what evolution is all about.

Are Peppered Moths an example of "evolution"?

If evolution could be described as microbes to men, then it would be worthy of such treatment.

Au Contraire Sir, this is evolution...

From two of the Fathers of evolution theory...

‘General Theory of Evolution’, defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’
Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960.

"Evolution comprises all the stages of the development of the universe: the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous. Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic nature, and man is a product of the evolution of life."
Dobzhansky T.G. "Changing Man", Science, 27 January 1967, Vol. 155. No 3761. p 409

evolution isn't even a Valid Hypothesis, let alone "Science" or a Valid Scientific Theory, As Evidenced By:

"The scientific method requires that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with experimental results if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "experiment is supreme" and experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary. Experiments may test the theory directly (for example, the observation of a new particle) or may test for consequences derived from the theory using mathematics and logic (the rate of a radioactive decay process requiring the existence of the new particle). Note that the necessity of experiment also implies that a theory must be testable. Theories which cannot be tested, because, for instance, they have no observable ramifications (such as, a particle whose characteristics make it unobservable), do not qualify as scientific theories."
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_l ... ndixe.html

The Scientific Method...

Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon
Step 2: Lit Review
Step 3: Hypothesis
Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT
Step 5: Analyze Data
Step 6: Valid/Invalid Hypothesis
Step 7: Report Results

This is Fog a Mirror: the Tenets of, and Exactly what "Actual Real Science" is and does. Lets take a Look @ what evolution is by arguably the TOP evolutionist of the 20th Century. (“Ernst Mayr, the world’s greatest living evolutionary biologist"---Stephen Jay Gould)...

Ernst Mayr PhD Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University...

"Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. LAWS AND EXPERIMENTS ARE INAPPROPRIATE TECHNIQUES FOR THE EXPLICATION OF SUCH EVENTS AND PROCESSES. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain." {Emphasis Mine}
Ernst Mayr, Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought; Scientific American, 24 November 2009

So....

Professor Mayr: "Evolutionary biology, IN CONTRAST with physics and chemistry".

If there was no difference in methodology, there would be no..."IN CONTRAST" with Two Empirical Sciences.

Professor Mayr: "the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place"

Hmm, How can you Observe a Phenomenon if the event has already taken place without a Time Machine? That also means that it is Impossible to formulate a "Valid" HYPOTHESIS.

Professor Mayr: "Laws and EXPERIMENTS are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes."

Uhh ohh. Isn't the MOST CRITICAL STEP of The Scientific Method....EXPERIMENT? To ahh, VALIDATE the Hypothesis, maybe?

Say Goodbye to: Step 1 (Observe a Phenomenon), Step 3 Hypothesis, Step 4 (Experiment). KaBooM!!

By the Way, the fine Professor's Truthful Statement is the Classic Foundation for: Begging The Question (Fallacy) and "Just So" Stories.

And then of course there's this, which Echoes Professor Mayr's synopsis...

“Evolution is not a process that allows us to predict what will happen in the future. We can see what happened in the past only".
Carol V. Ward (paleoanthropologist) University of Missouri; Experts Tackle Questions of How Humans will Evolve; Scientific American, Vol 311, Issue 3; 19 August 2014

How in the world are you gonna form a "Valid" Hypothesis if you can make ZERO predictions?

So as outlined, evolution is not "Scientific" or a "Theory" and is "False"- Science (Pseudo-Science).

Humanity is not the end point nor the goal of the evolutionary process.

Let's Craw/Walk/ then Run. Before we get to Humanity, can you explain these...

Using the "Scientific Method":

1. "Functional" DNA/RNA/Proteins NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.
It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.
That's just the Hardware!

To refute, Please show a "Functional" 30 mer- RNA or Protein (most are 250 AA or larger) that formed spontaneously "Outside" a Cell/Living Organism, CITE SOURCE! The smallest "Functional" DNA (Genome) is a little over 100,000 Nucleotides... so that ain't happenin.

2. How Did Stupid Atoms Write Their Own Software....?

Evolution is a blind aimless process, like erosion.

In SUPPORT, Can you detail "the process" of Blind Unguided "Natural" Causation of Algorithmic Cybernetic CODING and de-CODING Schemes...(DNA)?

Erosion did not set about to create the Grand Canyon.

How about Mt. Rushmore? Ya see, that motif displays Functional Specific Complexity....multiply that by a Factor of 10^000000000000000000000 and you might get into the zipcode of the Functional Sequence Complexity of the "Simplest" Cell.

It is not microbes to men, but microbes to every living entity on the planet.

Support ? .... as in VALIDATED Experiments (We are Talking Scientific Evidence, correct?). Lets start with ONE piece of the Hardware? Then The Elephant in the Room....The SOFTWARE.

This is an ignorant characterization of modern geology.

Geology isn't "Science" either. Unless you can show ONE Experiment VALIDATING any Postulate.....? If you have any, Please provide the: Dependent, Independent, and Control Variables of the TESTS...? Thanks


regards

[Enoch2021]

[Replying to post 273 by Enoch2021]
Still selectively quoting I see, and failing to give the URL for the entire article.
But even the quote you gave constitutes ZERO argument against the fact of evolution. Yes, evolutionary biology is different than physics. Was that a new idea for you?

A Secular View of Life
Darwin founded a new branch of life science, evolutionary biology. Four of his contributions to evolutionary biology are especially important, as they held considerable sway beyond that discipline. The first is the nonconstancy of species, or the modern conception of evolution itself. The second is the notion of branching evolution, implying the common descent of all species of living things on earth from a single unique origin. Up until 1859, all evolutionary proposals, such as that of naturalist Jean- Baptiste Lamarck, instead endorsed linear evolution, a teleological march toward greater perfection that had been in vogue since Aristotle’s concept of Scala Naturae, the chain of being. Darwin further noted that evolution must be gradual, with no major breaks or discontinuities. Finally, he reasoned that the mechanism of evolution was natural selection.

These four insights served as the foundation for Darwin’s founding of a new branch of the philosophy of science, a philosophy of biology. Despite the passing of a century before this new branch of philosophy fully developed, its eventual form is based on Darwinian concepts. For example, Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.
....

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... n-thought/

So How does this VALIDATE your Baseless Assertion (Fallacy) of "Quote Mining".......?

Thanks yes, I've had the article for some time. And I Especially LOVE this part....

"These four insights served as the foundation for Darwin’s founding of a new branch of the philosophy of science, a philosophy of biology." {Emphasis Mine}

We have ourselves "A Philosopher"!! Is Philosophy "Science"? i.e., does it conform to the Scientific Method?

Still selectively quoting I see, and failing to give the URL for the entire article.

Isn't that what the point of "Quotes" are? Failed to give the URL? lol
I understand though, what's left.

regards

[Danmark]

I'm glad you recognize m2m as a pejorative, for a feeble idea the is immanently worthy of such treatment.

If evolution could be described as microbes to men, then it would be worthy of such treatment. However, this discription is one that is made by those ignorant of what evolution is all about. Humanity is not the end point nor the goal of the evolutionary process. Evolution is a blind aimless process, like erosion. Erosion did not set about to create the Grand Canyon. Evolution did not set about to create humans. It is not microbes to men, but microbes to every living entity on the planet.

It boils down to this: "we think those rocks are very old. We think that, because they have been unchanged for a long time -- generations -- and therefore, they must have formed by very, very slow processes.

This is an ignorant characterization of modern geology.

However, this discription is one that is made by those ignorant of what evolution is all about.

Are Peppered Moths an example of "evolution"?

If evolution could be described as microbes to men, then it would be worthy of such treatment.

Au Contraire Sir, this is evolution...

From two of the Fathers of evolution theory...

‘General Theory of Evolution’, defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’
Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960.

"Evolution comprises all the stages of the development of the universe: the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous. Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic nature, and man is a product of the evolution of life."
Dobzhansky T.G. "Changing Man", Science, 27 January 1967, Vol. 155. No 3761. p 409

evolution isn't even a Valid Hypothesis, let alone "Science" or a Valid Scientific Theory, As Evidenced By:

"The scientific method requires that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with experimental results if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "experiment is supreme" and experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary. Experiments may test the theory directly (for example, the observation of a new particle) or may test for consequences derived from the theory using mathematics and logic (the rate of a radioactive decay process requiring the existence of the new particle). Note that the necessity of experiment also implies that a theory must be testable. Theories which cannot be tested, because, for instance, they have no observable ramifications (such as, a particle whose characteristics make it unobservable), do not qualify as scientific theories."
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_l ... ndixe.html

The Scientific Method...

Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon
Step 2: Lit Review
Step 3: Hypothesis
Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT
Step 5: Analyze Data
Step 6: Valid/Invalid Hypothesis
Step 7: Report Results
....

You are recycling your own failed material and quote mining again.
Here's what you conspicuously left out from the URL you cited [http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_l ... ndixe.html]
I. The scientific method has four steps

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
....There are, of course, circumstances when one cannot isolate the phenomena or when one cannot repeat the measurement over and over again. In such cases the results may depend in part on the history of a situation.
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_l ... ndixe.html

Obviously, we do not get a "do-over" with another 4.5 billion year experiment. That was Mayr's point.

Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... n-thought/

You keep insisting, by quote mining, that if there are no experiments, than it isn't science. You will continue to be wrong each time you make this claim.

And you are wrong on another front as well, because not only is evolution predictive, we've had thousands of 'experiments' in the sense that we both observe natural selection at work, but by artificial selection AKA breeding and the hybridization of plants.

As for your 1960 and 1967 out of context, one page quotes, just supply the URL for the entire book and article and I predict it will be easy to see how they are additional examples of quote mining. I'm willing to bet you plucked them from silly site, like "creationmagic.com." Let's check:
_________________________ *
Sure enough:
The latter comes from you at http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/ind ... 318&page=3

The 1960 quote is from
http://creation.com/evolution-definition-kerkut


Prediction confirmed!


Enoch, I'm going to miss you when you leave.


___________________________
* I really did write that before I googled it. No way to prove it I suppose, but it is enough for me that I know.

[Enoch2021]

I'm glad you recognize m2m as a pejorative, for a feeble idea the is immanently worthy of such treatment.

If evolution could be described as microbes to men, then it would be worthy of such treatment. However, this discription is one that is made by those ignorant of what evolution is all about. Humanity is not the end point nor the goal of the evolutionary process. Evolution is a blind aimless process, like erosion. Erosion did not set about to create the Grand Canyon. Evolution did not set about to create humans. It is not microbes to men, but microbes to every living entity on the planet.

It boils down to this: "we think those rocks are very old. We think that, because they have been unchanged for a long time -- generations -- and therefore, they must have formed by very, very slow processes.

This is an ignorant characterization of modern geology.

However, this discription is one that is made by those ignorant of what evolution is all about.

Are Peppered Moths an example of "evolution"?

If evolution could be described as microbes to men, then it would be worthy of such treatment.

Au Contraire Sir, this is evolution...

From two of the Fathers of evolution theory...

‘General Theory of Evolution’, defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’
Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960.

"Evolution comprises all the stages of the development of the universe: the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous. Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic nature, and man is a product of the evolution of life."
Dobzhansky T.G. "Changing Man", Science, 27 January 1967, Vol. 155. No 3761. p 409

evolution isn't even a Valid Hypothesis, let alone "Science" or a Valid Scientific Theory, As Evidenced By:

"The scientific method requires that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with experimental results if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "experiment is supreme" and experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary. Experiments may test the theory directly (for example, the observation of a new particle) or may test for consequences derived from the theory using mathematics and logic (the rate of a radioactive decay process requiring the existence of the new particle). Note that the necessity of experiment also implies that a theory must be testable. Theories which cannot be tested, because, for instance, they have no observable ramifications (such as, a particle whose characteristics make it unobservable), do not qualify as scientific theories."
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_l ... ndixe.html

The Scientific Method...

Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon
Step 2: Lit Review
Step 3: Hypothesis
Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT
Step 5: Analyze Data
Step 6: Valid/Invalid Hypothesis
Step 7: Report Results
....

You are recycling your own failed material and quote mining again.
Here's what you conspicuously left out from the URL you cited [http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_l ... ndixe.html]
I. The scientific method has four steps

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
....There are, of course, circumstances when one cannot isolate the phenomena or when one cannot repeat the measurement over and over again. In such cases the results may depend in part on the history of a situation.
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_l ... ndixe.html

Obviously, we do not get a "do-over" with another 4.5 billion year experiment. That was Mayr's point.

Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... n-thought/

You keep insisting, by quote mining, that if there are no experiments, than it isn't science. You will continue to be wrong each time you make this claim.

And you are wrong on another front as well, because not only is evolution predictive, we've had thousands of 'experiments' in the sense that we both observe natural selection at work, but by artificial selection AKA breeding and the hybridization of plants.

As for your 1960 and 1967 out of context, one page quotes, just supply the URL for the entire book and article and I predict it will be easy to see how they are additional examples of quote mining. I'm willing to bet you plucked them from silly site, like "creationmagic.com." Let's check:
_________________________ *
Sure enough:
The latter comes from you at http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/ind ... 318&page=3

The 1960 quote is from
http://creation.com/evolution-definition-kerkut


Prediction confirmed!


Enoch, I'm going to miss you when you leave.


___________________________
* I really did write that before I googled it. No way to prove it I suppose, but it is enough for me that I know.

You are recycling your own failed material and quote mining again.
Here\'s what you conspicuously left out from the URL you cited [http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_l ... ndixe.html]
[quote:f83760a66f]I. The scientific method has four steps

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
....There are, of course, circumstances when one cannot isolate the phenomena or when one cannot repeat the measurement over and over again. In such cases the results may depend in part on the history of a situation.
The scientific method has four steps

A. "Failed" eh? Baseless Assertion (Fallacy), How so...?

B. "Conspicuously left out", eh? Now I suppose the URL isn't good enough.... How about if I get it Notarized next time? There are only 4 Steps. Do these 4 Steps Invalidate anything that I posted? All they did was leave out (Step 2 Lit Review, Step 5 Data Analysis, Step 6 Validate, Step 7 Report). As you can see, these are mainly logistical and ("Well Duh") Steps. Step 2 Lit Review can be skipped... although I wouldn't recommend it, for 2 Reasons: 1. It gives you background into the subject matter and will prevent you from making mistakes ect, and 2. It will save you from picking up cans along the side of the road. Ya see, if you go a half-steppin with Time/Man Hours/Resources over an Experiment that's been done countless times and your Boss/Immediate Supervisor finds out...I predict one of those Heart to Heart Chats concerning dodging traffic and bag size... for the cans.

C. "Quote Mining" again, eh? geez. Even after I exposed you and this never ending feebly contrived Baseless Assertion (Fallacy) in Post# 273. This is tantamount to the Chairman of PETA showing up for work the next day after he was video-taped "Live", Clubbing Baby Seals with a 44" Louisville Slugger.

D. "when one cannot repeat the measurement"? You can't even get to the First Step of the Scientific Method let alone a Valid Hypothesis then One TEST; Ergo...Straw Man (Fallacy)

Obviously, we do not get a "do over" with another 4.5 billion year experiment. That was Mayr's point.

Ipse Dixit. He was "CLEARLY" saying that evolution isn't "science" and that Darwin was a Philosopher. Is Philosophy "science"...?

And.....Begging The Question (Fallacy) "4.5 Billion Years".

You keep insisting, by quote mining, that if there are no experiments, than it isn''t science. You will continue to be wrong each time you make this claim.

Ipse Dixit.

This is tantamount to: "You keep insisting that if there is no hydrogen, then it isn't water...You will continue to be wrong each time you make this claim".

A Scientific Theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. {Emphasis Mine}
http://chemistry.abo...a/lawtheory.htm

A Scientific Theory consists of one or more hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. {Emphasis Mine}
http://www.fromquark...-theory-or-law/

A Scientific Theory represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been CONFIRMED through REPEATED EXPERIMENTAL TESTS. {Emphasis Mine}
http://teacher.nsrl..../appendixe.html

Do you see any pattern that's "repeating" in the 3 statements above?

And you are wrong on another front as well, because not only is evolution predictive, we've had thousands of 'experiments' in the sense that we both observe natural selection at work, but by artificial selection AKA breeding and the hybridization of plants.

Ipse Dixit.

“Evolution is not a process that allows us to predict what will happen in the future. We can see what happened in the past only".
Carol V. Ward (paleoanthropologist) University of Missouri; Experts Tackle Questions of How Humans will Evolve; Scientific American, Vol 311, Issue 3; 19 August 2014

"Observations" aren't Experiments/TESTS (What's your Independent Variable...your Eyelids?). Natural Selection is tautology. All you or anyone else has ever observed is change in allele frequency, aka Genetic Variation.

As for your 1960 and 1967 out of context, one page quotes

1. What on Earth does "1960" and "1967" have to do with anything, Pray Tell?

2. "Out Of Context" One of Hundreds of your personal Baseless Assertions (Fallacy)

just supply the URL for the entire book and article and I predict it will be easy to see how they are additional examples of quote mining.

1. I provided the URL the last time and you said that I conspicuously left stuff out lol. Did you mean left stuff out of the url?

2. So you "conjure" a (Guess) then offer a prediction off an extrapolation from that guess, eh? Do you think it is logical for people to imagine things and then demand others who do not believe in your imaginings to demonstrate how your imaginings are false, BEFORE you give evidence for your imaginings?

3. It's quite obvious you haven't a Clue what "Quote Mining" is Sir. It would probably help if you READ THEM FIRST , See Post # 273.

I'm willing to bet you plucked them from silly site, like "creationmagic.com." Let's check:
Sure enough:
The latter comes from you at http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/ind ... 318&page=3

What in the WORLD Sir? Can you explain in some detail "Coherently" what you are trying to portray here?

The 1960 quote is from
http://creation.com/evolution-definition-kerkut

This is tantamount to being attacked by a Grizzly Bear and instead of protecting yourself from being eviscerated you're overly preoccupied with where and by which route the bear came.
Are you saying the folks @ Creation.com wrote this in Kerkut's Book?
It's also a clumsy Genetic Fallacy.


Do you have a substantive argument concerning the "actual content"...of any post?

regards