Civil. Respectful. Intelligent. Thoughtful. Challenging.

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41  Next

Reply to topic
Donray
First Post
PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2018 11:34 am  KINDS and ADAPTATION Reply with quote

EarthScienceguy wrote:

I believe in adaptation not evolution. Adaptation says that organisms change because of heredity not mutations.

God created kinds of animals. So yes He only created one species of humans.


In another topic when I asked EarthScienceguy what he believed instead of evolution he wrote back the above. I asked him several times to explin his theory and he incapable of explanation and debate of his theory.
I would like to find from any Christians that believes like EarthScienceguy something about this belief and some proof using known fossils and how these fit in.
How do you explain Homo neanderthalensis (the Neanderthal) and The Denisovans that both had sex with modern humans? If you are from Europe for your background you have some Neanderthal DNA.

Since this theory uses “kinds of animals” that a lot of creationist do could someone list all the kinds that were on the ark and then the list of animals, insects, bacteria, etc that these kinds adapted into. Are you with a lot of the undereducated people that think the world is less then 10K years old?

What is adaptation and not evolution? Does it have anything to due with DNA changing? Could someone point out all the articles that support this theory? I would hope that there is a list of science articles that shows your science of adaptation of kinds on the ARK to all the diversity we have.

I would like to have a debate on this theory since Christians like to debate evolution we should have this debate also.
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 351: Sun Aug 11, 2019 6:07 pm
Reply

Like this post (1): brunumb
[Replying to post 349 by Still small]

I’m not a fan of the long nested quote, so I just wanted to touch upon three things from your response.

1) No refutation of my claims of ‘ad hominem’, so thank you.

2) Why go back to 1913 for a dictionary definition of naturalism? The online Webster definition is:

“a theory denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance
specifically : the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena”

<bolding mine>
No need for any biblical reference.

3) You stated:
Quote:
This would preclude from the realm of actual science any phenomenon which has not been directly observed or recorded for future observation. This would preclude everything prior to man’s existence, whether it be 6 million years ago or 6,000 to 10,000 years ago.


Only if indirect observation was ignored. Your point may be valid within some rigourous philosophical framework, but in the real world of scientific endeavour, disciplines such as physics,geology, archaeology and palaeontology, can work astonishingly well without direct evidence.

Saying (in effect) “we don’t know the past with 100% certainty” doesn’t in any way negate the volume of evidence that we do have to support the theory of evolution.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 352: Tue Aug 13, 2019 8:34 am
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to post 348 by Diagoras]
In respect to your comment about falsifiability regarding the table section ‘Phenomenon/Condition of ‘Similarities, ranging from Genetic to Morphological, between various Organisms’ and Karl Popper’s comments, I may have to concede that point (but I reserve the right to further investigate and change my position Smile )

As for the section ‘Phenomenon/Condition of ‘Massive amounts of Coded Genetic Information’, and the lack of references in the associated footnote 8, may I suggest two papers - The fundamental theorem of natural selection with mutations and The Most Famous Evolution Experiment of All Time Shows that Evolution Goes the Wrong Way

As for charges of ad hominems by the article’s author, might I point out the sub-title, being “A Response to the Pretense that No Creation Theory Exists”. The article is responding to criticism on a particular website. Might I also point out that the purpose of ad hominems is to ‘attack the claim-maker’ so as to avoid dealing with the ‘claim’. Might I point out that in this article, the claim is being dealt with by listing aspects of the Theory of Creation plus writings where detailed descriptions can be found. These writings, though publicly available, have for one reason or another, apparently been missed and therefore denied by the ‘claim-makers’. They, like many others, should research their topic more thoroughly before attacking it. If criticising someone for their criticism appears biased or an ad hominems, so be it.

Quote:
Getting nearer the end of the article, under the heading ‘Where is the Theory of Creation documented?’, I just found a list of books, which are being offered for sale by various creationist publishers, plus links to journals along with this comment:

Quote:
Very few of evolution’s most vocal proponents seem to have personally laid eyes on a copy of either of these publications.  The ignorance inherent in their criticism of a caricatured “creationism” therefore comes as no surprise.


So another ad hominem to add to the list.


Firstly, as an alternative, can you provided a list of books containing a true and correct interpretation of the Theory of Creation offered for sale by various naturalistic evolutionary publishers?
As for the criticism, by attacking ‘strawmen’ arguments or ‘caricatured “creationism”’ by the ‘claim-makers’, clearly gives the impression that they either have not properly ‘researched’ their topic or cannot actually dispute it, thus choosing to ‘destroy’ an argument of their own making. It is not so much an attack on the ‘claim-makers’ but that their argument fails due to not dealing with the true topic under discussions, namely the Theory of Creation as presented.

Quote:
The final conclusion states:

Quote:
By having the terms defined with more clarity (and less bias), and with a measure of information provided, one should have little difficulty seeing that the “theory of creation” not only exists, but also stands up rather well to a rigorous side-by-side comparison with its evolutionary counterpart.


The only thing presented in the entire article that comes close to this is the comparison table, which is shockingly biased. And then the whole article wraps up with further ad hominem attacks against the Talk.Origins website, which seems to be the whole focus of its author. (Emphasis added)


That is correct, the actual purpose of the article was attacking the falsehoods made on that particular website. The purpose, though, of my listing or linking it was to provide Donray with a list of sources for the Theory of Creation, as asked.

Quote:
Well, that’s technically true. However, one has to question the relevance and utility of that evidence, particularly when you have stated so clearly that:

Quote:
I BELIEVE GOD CREATED THE HEAVENS, THE EARTH AND THE ORIGINAL KINDS 6,000 TO 10,000 YEARS AGO.


When the evidence against this view (‘Young Earth Creationism’) is so overwhelming, it’s no wonder that no-one is taking much notice of such information.


Firstly, allow me to be a bit more specific - I believe God created the Heavens, the Earth and the original kinds 6,000 to 10,000 years ago, relative to the Earth. Unfortunately you, as many others appear to do, are mistakenly confusing my rejection of your interpretation of the evidence with rejection of the evidence, itself. I am rejecting an interpretation based on the usual naturalistic materialists a priori of uniformitarian belief that ‘the present is the key to the past’. I, on the other hand, believe there is sufficient evidence for catastrophism as an explanation of that which we see. As for your list of persons attempting to calculate the age of the Earth, a point in time unseen by any human, upon what a priori were they basing their estimates?

Quote:
In conclusion, science finds its most compelling substantiation in technical, detailed analyses of actual empirical data and scientifically sound principles... and not in attempting to fit that data into an existent hypothesis.


Yet, you appear content to base your interpretation of the ‘actual empirical data’ on unproven/unprovable assumptions or a priori. Go figure!! Would that not also be ‘attempting to fit that data into an existent hypothesis’?

Have a good day!
Still small

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 353: Tue Aug 13, 2019 4:27 pm
Reply

Like this post (1): brunumb
[Replying to post 352 by Still small]

There are a few questions and claims to answer in your post, so let me apologise at the outset if I miss any that you particularly felt needed a response. It's mainly due to available time for discussion that I have to 'pick and choose'.

Re: 'The Most Famous Evolution Experiment'. I followed the link and read the article. There are a few terms and criteria that the author introduces without proper justification (e.g. the notion of 'fitness'), but two particular points I want to make are:

1) Where else has this paper been published, apart from on the 'Feed My Sheep Foundation' website? Has there been any peer review of the paper? I think not, because of...

2) Once you get down to the conclusion, there's a real sting in the tale:

Quote:
The Bible teaches that because of Adam’s sin (see LogosRa.org article for genetic evidence for a literal Adam and Eve ancestry) we live in a fallen creation that is subject to the “bondage of decay” (Romans 8:21).


Can we be confident that the author hasn't started from a biblical claim of 'bondage of decay' and just worked backwards from the conclusion to make the data fit? That is simply not science.

Turning to this question:

Quote:
can you provided [sic] a list of books containing a true and correct interpretation of the Theory of Creation offered for sale by various naturalistic evolutionary publishers?


No, I can't. Firstly, I don't think non-Christian publishing houses are categorised that specifically, so there wouldn't be such a thing as a 'naturalistic evolutionary publisher'. Secondly, even a publisher that was focused on ToE books wouldn't offer your type of book for sale because it's not of interest to their target audience. As an 'olive brach' to find some middle ground, I can offer the opinion that both 'sides' by definition tend to avoid publishing books that support the other. That's just representative of the divide between scientific naturalism and religious belief.

And relating to your YEC beliefs:

Quote:
I am rejecting an interpretation based on the usual naturalistic materialists a priori of uniformitarian belief that ‘the present is the key to the past’. I, on the other hand, believe there is sufficient evidence for catastrophism as an explanation of that which we see. As for your list of persons attempting to calculate the age of the Earth, a point in time unseen by any human, upon what a priori were they basing their estimates?


<bolding mine>

I'm sorry, but I don't understand the bolded point. It seems to me that you view science as simply 'an interpretation', but that catastrophism has 'sufficient evidence' and somehow isn't an interpretation itself?

And this:

Quote:
Yet, you appear content to base your interpretation of the ‘actual empirical data’ on unproven/unprovable assumptions or a priori.


(I think this still relates to 'age of earth' calculations, but you may be making a wider point?)

Can you be specific about exactly which unproven/unprovable assumptions you are referring to?

For example, from my perspective I can offer:

"Assuming a god as the creator of the universe is both unproven and unprovable."

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 354: Sun Aug 18, 2019 7:04 am
Reply

Like this post
Diagoras wrote:

I’m not a fan of the long nested quote, so I just wanted to touch upon three things from your response.

I apologise then but I only do so to avoid the need to flip back and forward between posts to understand the reference.

Quote:
(1) No refutation of my claims of ‘ad hominem’, so thank you.

I may have done so in a following post, being that what you referred to as ad hominem may not, technically be so. The purpose of ad hominems is to ‘attack the claim-maker’ so as to avoid dealing with the ‘claim’ whereas, in this article, the claim of ‘no Theory of Creation’ is being dealt with.

Quote:
(2) Why go back to 1913 for a dictionary definition of naturalism? The online Webster definition is:

“a theory denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance
specifically : the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena”

<bolding mine>
No need for any biblical reference.

Might I say this may be due to the fact that in 1913, there may have been little or no ‘political correctness’.

Quote:
Only if indirect observation was ignored. Your point may be valid within some rigourous philosophical framework, but in the real world of scientific endeavour, disciplines such as physics,geology, archaeology and palaeontology, can work astonishingly well without direct evidence.

Saying (in effect) “we don’t know the past with 100% certainty” doesn’t in any way negate the volume of evidence that we do have to support the theory of evolution.

‘Indirect observations’, are only an interpretation as to what may have actually occurred. Again, all evidential interpretations, whether they be naturalism or creationism, are subject to one’s bias or a priori .

Have a good day!
Still small

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 355: Mon Aug 19, 2019 7:27 am
Reply

Like this post
Diagoras wrote:
There are a few questions and claims to answer in your post, so let me apologise at the outset . . . .

No problem, we are all ‘time poor’ to one extent or another.

Quote:
Re: 'The Most Famous Evolution Experiment'. I followed the link and read the article. There are a few terms and criteria that the author introduces without proper justification (e.g. the notion of 'fitness'), but two particular points I want to make are:

1) Where else has this paper been published, apart from on the 'Feed My Sheep Foundation' website? Has there been any peer review of the paper? I think not, because of...

I am not sure where else this may have been published but does that determine the truth of the subject? Maybe its acceptability but does it prove its factualness? I mainly listed it as an example of that in the first paper - The fundamental theorem of natural selection with mutations of which, so far, I have yet to see any comment by yourself or others. Also, please feel free to critic the second paper where you believe it to be wrong.

Quote:
(2) Once you get down to the conclusion, there's a real sting in the tale:

Quote:
The Bible teaches that because of Adam’s sin (see LogosRa.org article for genetic evidence for a literal Adam and Eve ancestry) we live in a fallen creation that is subject to the “bondage of decay” (Romans 8:21).


Can we be confident that the author hasn't started from. . . a biblical claim of 'bondage of decay' and just worked backwards from the conclusion to make the data fit? That is simply not science.

No more so than we can be confident that Darwin’s ToE didn’t stem from a rejection of or refusal to accept the possibility of a Creator God and thus ‘just worked backwards from the conclusion to make the data fit’.

Quote:
And relating to your YEC beliefs: . . .

I'm sorry, but I don't understand the bolded point (a priori of uniformitarian belief that ‘the present is the key to the past’). It seems to me that you view science as simply 'an interpretation', but that catastrophism has 'sufficient evidence' and somehow isn't an interpretation itself?

I am sorry if I gave that impression but no, I recognise that science (according to the Webster’s on-line dictionary) is “3 - a - : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method” being “principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses” (again from the Webster’s on-line dictionary). Science is the gathering of data which is then interpreted and usually done according to one’s a priori regardless of whether it be naturalism or creationism (or uniformitarianism or catastrophism). It is not so much that I think that catastrophism ‘isn't an interpretation itself’, I just believe that it is a better fit as an explanation of all the evidence.

Quote:
And this:

Quote:
Yet, you appear content to base your interpretation of the ‘actual empirical data’ on unproven/unprovable assumptions or a priori.


(I think this still relates to 'age of earth' calculations, but you may be making a wider point?)

Can you be specific about exactly which unproven/unprovable assumptions you are referring to?

Assumption such as a constant rate of radiometric decay, papers which I have linked before that show that it can vary. The amount of variation possible has not and cannot be determined from present decay rates. Plus complications such as 14C found in places where it shouldn’t be (according to currently accepted theories). Fossils, supposedly millions of years old still with traces of genetic material, etc. Unproven a priori such as the formation of stars and planets which, according to current naturalistic theories does take millions, if not billions of years. But these are all unproven theories which are used as a priori. Again, don’t get me wrong, we all have a priori of one nature or another. It is just matter of which is a better fit for the evidence. While I have done a great deal of investigation into naturalistic methods before ruling them out, how much investigation have you done into genuine creationistic methods (beyond the petty ‘god dunnit’, ‘god-magic’ and ‘invisible sky daddy’ style comments)?

Quote:
For example, from my perspective I can offer:

"Assuming a god as the creator of the universe is both unproven and unprovable."

Yes, you can offer that and as I’ve explained elsewhere, He cannot be proven by the scientific method but that doesn’t rule out philosophical, logical and theological methods. It’s just a matter of whether you are prepared to put in a genuine effort before dismissing it.

Have a good day!
Still small

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 356: Mon Aug 19, 2019 9:37 am
Reply

Like this post (3): benchwarmer, brunumb, Diagoras
[Replying to post 355 by Still small]

Quote:
No more so than we can be confident that Darwin’s ToE didn’t stem from a rejection of or refusal to accept the possibility of a Creator God and thus ‘just worked backwards from the conclusion to make the data fit’.


Do you geniunely believe that Darwin and early proponents of ToE had a refusal to accept a Creator God as even the slightest component of their reasons for development of the theory? They were trying to explain observations of the natural world, and ToE is what came out of those efforts. There are no indications in their early writings (or do you have some reference to refute this?) that their ideas for ToE in any way stemmed from a rejection of the existence of a god being of some type. They did "work backwards" from observations because that is how science works when its goal is to explain observations, but there is no indication that belief, or not, in the existence of gods had anything whatsoever to do with their work or conclusions.

Quote:
Science is the gathering of data which is then interpreted and usually done according to one’s a priori ...


You've used a priori many times before with the implication that science can be interpreted in different ways, and it is just a matter of that interpretation that is important. This is certainly true for some of the "soft" areas of science such as philosophy, but it is not true for the "hard" sciences such as mathematics, chemistry, physics, biology, etc. Of course there are open, unsolved problems such as explanations for origin of life, dark matter and energy, etc., but those are recognized as such. You can't say that F=ma, or P=mv are a priori's that are open to interpretation, or that the formation of rust on an iron object can be interpreted in any other way besides oxidation to form Fe2O3. Science is built on many similar fundamental axioms and relationships that have been proven to be correct, and are not open to anyone's interpretation.

Radioactive decay rates have never been shown to vary by any significant amount in legitimate, accepted experiments. Creationists are constantly misinterpreting things such as the clearly unfounded "soft tissue in dinosaur bones" fiasco, carbon 14 in diamonds, using carbon dating on things known to be far beyond its roughly 40,000 year limit, or when it is known to have problems such as in freshwater mussels and certain other sea creatures:

https://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating

Organizations like ICR referenced in the above article, AIG, etc. attack only those areas of science that disprove a young earth, or other aspects of their religious beliefs, and you don't hear a peep from them on unrelated science areas that don't specifically contradict their religious beliefs. That should tell you something. They "reinterpret" only certain observations that conflict with their religious beliefs to try and support their claim that their creationist views are consistent with modern science, and to try and discredit those cherry-picked areas of science (eg. radiometric dating) that prove that their views of a young earth are wrong. Most of science is not built on subjective a priori assumptions ... it could bever have achieved what is has if that were the case.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 357: Mon Aug 19, 2019 5:44 pm
Reply

Like this post (1): Tcg
[Replying to post 355 by Still small]

Quote:
No more so than we can be confident that Darwin’s ToE didn’t stem from a rejection of or refusal to accept the possibility of a Creator God and thus ‘just worked backwards from the conclusion to make the data fit’.

It's only known as Darwin's theory because he was the first past the post in having it published. A short delay and we could be referring to Wallace's theory of evolution. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Russel_Wallace)
The evidence all converges to the same conclusion regardless of who is given the credit for the theory. Many people over the centuries before these two had inklings of the same notion regarding the origin of species. A really good book on that is
Darwin's Ghosts: In Search of the First Evolutionists
by Rebecca Stott

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 358: Mon Aug 19, 2019 8:58 pm
Reply

Like this post
Still small wrote:
I am not sure where else this may have been published but does that determine the truth of the subject?


No, not in isolation, but if any scientific theory is to be supported, it should properly be peer-reviewed. In effect, ‘debated’ to determine whether or not its findings are correct and repeatable. If this paper you refer to has been peer-reviewed then it strengthens your claims, otherwise we should simply reserve judgment.

Quote:
While I have done a great deal of investigation into naturalistic methods before ruling them out, how much investigation have you done into genuine creationistic methods (beyond the petty ‘god dunnit’, ‘god-magic’ and ‘invisible sky daddy’ style comments)?


For the record, I don’t recall ever making such ‘petty’ comments, although I can certainly accept that you’ve seen similar comments from other people. I’ll be perfectly willing to retract any such remark I’ve made if you wish.

As a broader point though, I genuinely don’t believe it’s useful for us (the collective ‘us’, not just you and me individually) to bring ‘quantity of research’ into the debate. As a comparison, some fans of conspiracy theories put up vast quantities of what they see as ‘evidence’, and expect the other side to fully investigate every single claim the same way. To be clear, I’m not suggesting this tactic is being used here, but my response to your point about having investigated a lot of scientific claims and found them wanting would be to invite you to put up just your strongest (most compelling to you) argument for debate.

I note that this thread has moved on considerably from the original question, and that ‘scattergun’ approach (by multiple posters, not just you) might be partly the reason for that. I’ll happy engage with a more tightly-defined debate on the accuracy of claims for the age of the earth, if you like, which might be more appropriate for this sub-forum, rather than a more ‘philosophy of science’ discussion.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 359: Mon Aug 19, 2019 11:59 pm
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to post 355 by Still small]

Quote:
While I have done a great deal of investigation into naturalistic methods before ruling them out, how much investigation have you done into genuine creationistic methods (beyond the petty ‘god dunnit’, ‘god-magic’ and ‘invisible sky daddy’ style comments)?

What on earth are "genuine creationistic methods"? How do they differ from the scientific method and in what way can they be established as better, or at least reliable?

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 360: Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:32 am
Reply

Like this post (1): brunumb
[Replying to post 354 by Still small]

Quote:
‘Indirect observations’, are only an interpretation as to what may have actually occurred. Again, all evidential interpretations, whether they be naturalism or creationism, are subject to one’s bias or a priori .


In science, observations can take many forms, either directly (e.g. by seeing, feeling, or hearing), or indirectly by extending and refining our basic senses with tools: thermometers, microscopes, telescopes, mass spectrometers, etc. These tools actually do a much better job of observing than we can, as they don’t have any predetermined ‘bias’ about what they observe. As we cannot directly sense many of the phenomena that science investigates (e.g. electrons are too small to see with the human eye, and gravity is an ‘invisible’ force), we must rely on indirect observations facilitated by such tools. The fact that many different scientists can independently and repeatedly ‘sense’ things like the charge on an electron, or the radioactive half-life of an element, and reach the same conclusion, demonstrates that indirect observation is in fact often the best way to validate (or falsify) a hypothesis.

DrNoGods has already made this point with his examples of ‘hard’ sciences, but the over-arching point has to be stated clearly: good science recognises that bias exists, both in the scientist themselves, and the instruments they use (accuracy, for example). Proper experimentation, and robust peer-review, is specifically designed to address, and eliminate as far as practical, these biases. When we do so, we eventually arrive at scientific theories and laws. When you can provide any research paper that demonstrates a similar level of self-checking and peer-review for a creationist claim, then you’ll likely see a much more ‘open’ response from the non-theist audience here.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Display posts from previous:   

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41  Next

Jump to:  
Facebook
Tweet

 




On The Web | Ecodia | Hymn Lyrics Apps
Facebook | Twitter

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.   Produced by Ecodia.

Igloo   |  Lo-Fi Version