Loch Ness Monster and Evolution\Resurrection

[CalvinsBulldog]

FIRST QUESTION:
People have written a lot about the LNM. People have written a lot about evolution.
People BELIEVE the LNM is real. People also BELIEVE that evolution is real.

The evidence for the LNM comes from people who saw it.
The evidence for evolution comes from people who didn't see it.

The evidence for the LNM comes from old writings, living eyewitnesses, photographs, modern writings, sonar searches, and comparisons to fossils of similar beings.

The evidence for evolution only comes from modern writings by propagandists and their interpretation of incomplete fossils. In fact, there is no evidence for evolution except the evidence that comes from propagandists, paid researchers who "find evidence", the already convinced, and promoters who write propaganda about their favourite unseen theory of macroevolution.

But is there more evidence for the LNM than there is for evolution (specifically: the alleged macroevolution of human beings from cellular life and alleged ancestors)?

SECOND QUESTION: As part of the debate, compare the historical evidence for the Resurrection (NOT archeological or paleontological) with the historical evidence for evolution (not archeological or paleontological). Is the historical evidence for the resurrection better than for evolution?

(Many thanks to SallyF et al for this debating idea and for the wording.)

[CalvinsBulldog]

[Replying to post 10 by SallyF]

If leave aside your "heard about" …
We have, according to your definitions of "historical" and "evidence", NO historical evidence for the so-called "Resurrection" of the universe-creating, planet-flooding, virgin-birthing, fish-multiplying, death-defeating, heaven-ascending god-man call Jesus.

You're ducking now because you are beginning to sense - possibly dimly - that if the same sort of methodology you want to apply to the biblical God in the other thread were applied to evolution vs the LNM, evolution would fail too.

So now you're resorting to the Kitchen Sink Method (TM) where you toss out everything under the sun, and make your irrelevant assertions about God, and do everything basically except address the question of the thread.

I've given you clarification on the questions. Your response is to go off in a tailspin and meltdown. Come back to earth and get back to the question of the debate.

Is the historical evidence for evolution better or worse than for the LNM? So far you've given me a picture and Google search count. I've given you 11 eyewitnesses, some of whom took photographs of the watery beast.

If you can't defend evolution better than that, simply concede that the historical evidence for the LNM is better than for evolution and we'll call it quits.

BTW: This is what happens when you don't read other people's posts properly before responding.

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 1 by CalvinsBulldog]

When one attempts to discuss evolution it would be prudent for them to have great understanding of the concept (including meaning of the term).

The study of genetics (knowledge of which is essential to informed discussion of evolution) is a years-long pursuit. Cursory perusal of news articles and watching television shows is not adequate. Reading ancient texts is even less informative.

However, many with television level ‘knowledge’ (and no scientific study – but theological bent) seem to feel qualified to critique / criticize those who spend careers in study. They are no more qualified to do so than someone who has ‘learned’ about flying from video games telling an airline pilot how airplanes should be flown.

A good place to start honest investigation might be the National Center for Science Education. https://ncse.ngo/defining-evolution

When we try to explain evolution to those who do not know much about it, one of the problems we have is the definition of what counts as evolution. In part, this is because some of the definitions found in the scientific literature, including textbooks and popularizations of evolutionary theory, use technical terms that do not seem to convey to the public that evolution explains the diversity of living forms. In part, it is also because the popular idea of evolution as it is found in dictionaries, science fiction, and philosophical potboilers is a holdover of concepts that have long been abandoned in the biological sciences, if not in theology or in the "science" of popular media.

It is important to understand these various definitions relative to each other and to show that accepting evolution as defined in the sciences does not commit one to accepting another form, as proposed by theology or philosophy. In particular it is important to realize that, contrary to many nonscientific uses of the term, evolution is neither a progressive process — modern theory does not make it inevitable that the latest is the best — nor can we expect to be able to predict the "next step" in evolution.

The article continues in some depth

[CalvinsBulldog]

[Replying to post 12 by Zzyzx]

I wondered when you'd show up.

When one attempts to discuss evolution it would be prudent for them to have great understanding of the concept (including meaning of the term).

Are we are all to infer from this sentence that you, Zzyzx, have "great understanding"? It sounds like it.

The study of genetics (knowledge of which is essential to informed discussion of evolution) is a years-long pursuit. Cursory perusal of news articles and watching television shows is not adequate. Reading ancient texts is even less informative.

OK, so you need a degree in genetics apparently to understand or adequately discuss evolution. Yet this doesn't stop you, a person with zilch historical training, from actually lecturing people about historiography.

Of course you don't need a university level knowledge of genetics to talk about evolution. Even Darwin himself wasn't a geneticist. Not all evolutionary scientists are geneticists. You're creating arbitrary standards.

However, many with television level ‘knowledge’ (and no scientific study – but theological bent) seem to feel qualified to critique / criticize those who spend careers in study. They are no more qualified to do so than someone who has ‘learned’ about flying from video games telling an airline pilot how airplanes should be flown.

Darn. I cannot help but hear this text in those pretentious aristocratic tones from comedic movies.

Yes, I do so agree! Those unwashed plebians must understand they are nowhere near the level of exalted geniuses like some who inhabit this forum (though nameless those towering intellects shall remain).

I point out the incredible double standard. You sure seem qualified to critique theology without any theological education (unless it was study undertaken on a C. Chaplin Fellowship). I'm sure you'll have a Special Pleading case as to why you can get away with this. You sure seem happy to not only comment on historiographical issues but debate on history - though you are not even a history minor. Of course, we all understand there are Special Exceptions for Zzyzx.

A good place to start honest investigation might be the National Center for Science Education. https://ncse.ngo/defining-evolution

Why, thank you for your condescension. I would be absolutely lost without you.

When we try to explain evolution to those who do not know much about it, one of the problems we have is the definition of what counts as evolution. In part, this is because some of the definitions found in the scientific literature, including textbooks and popularizations of evolutionary theory, use technical terms that do not seem to convey to the public that evolution explains the diversity of living forms. In part, it is also because the popular idea of evolution as it is found in dictionaries, science fiction, and philosophical potboilers is a holdover of concepts that have long been abandoned in the biological sciences, if not in theology or in the "science" of popular media.

Is there anything more annoying that having someone so impressed with their own intelligence which they assume is extremely impressive, that they think other people are unaware of even the basics? Most assuredly, there is not. Tell you what, Zzyzx, next time you pretend to opine on topics you have no training in - not even rudimentary understandings of - I'll refer you to the relevant "For Dummies" volume, quotes and all. OK?

In the meantime, I assure you I am perfectly adequately educated to talk about evolution.

The article continues in some depth

For a university teacher of geology, geography, earth science, meteorology and climatology, you sure seem super confident in your genetic knowledge. Are you also a geneticist in addition to being a general expert on the whole planet?

[benchwarmer]

The evidence for evolution comes from people who didn't see it.

Wrong. The evidence for evolution comes from observation of physical data. How can one not see what one is observing? Unless of course you are using other senses than sight such as sound, touch, etc. - which is also observation.

If you don't believe the evidence for evolution you are always welcome to go do the physical research yourself. If you find something that refutes the theory, you are encouraged to publish your research and have it peer reviewed.

[CalvinsBulldog]

[Replying to post 14 by benchwarmer]

Wrong. The evidence for evolution comes from observation of physical data. How can one not see what one is observing? Unless of course you are using other senses than sight such as sound, touch, etc. - which is also observation.

No, you've misunderstood completely.

In the process you've just moved the goalposts and changed direct observation of an event with direct observation of the physical evidence left behind from an event. Did anyone personally see macroevolution take place? If they did, they would need to be at least several millions of years old. Did any person see an aquatic organism drag itself up onto land? No.

The physical data for evolution consists of extant remains from the past from which deductions are made. This is not the same thing as direct witness, which is what I was talking about. Evolution has not been observed in the same way that the Loch Ness Monster has been observed. Ergo, there is more historical evidence for the LNM than for evolution.

If you don't believe the evidence for evolution you are always welcome to go do the physical research yourself. If you find something that refutes the theory, you are encouraged to publish your research and have it peer reviewed.

My belief in evolution is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the evidence for evolution would fail the test created by SallyF for the existence of God. That is the point I am trying to demonstrate and the point that so far has not even been touched by atheists.

My point is that the historical evidence for evolution (not paleontological or archeological evidence) is non-existent, whereas there is historical evidence for the Loch Ness Monster. Ergo, it is both accurate and possible to say that there is more\better historical evidence for the LNM than for evolution.

Since SallyF thinks the LNM is a good yardstick to measure historical events (combined with a string of evidence-excluding caveats, naturally) it should be easily possible to show that there is better historical evidence for evolution.

[marco]

Darn. I cannot help but hear this text in those pretentious aristocratic tones from comedic movies.
…..

You sure seem happy to not only comment on historiographical issues but debate on history - though you are not even a history minor. Of course, we all understand there are Special Exceptions for Zzyzx.

Moderator Comment

Again, avoid making personal comments.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 14 by benchwarmer]

Wrong. The evidence for evolution comes from observation of physical data. How can one not see what one is observing? Unless of course you are using other senses than sight such as sound, touch, etc. - which is also observation.

No, you've misunderstood completely.

In the process you've just moved the goalposts and changed direct observation of an event with direct observation of the physical evidence left behind from an event. Did anyone personally see macroevolution take place? If they did, they would need to be at least several millions of years old. Did any person see an aquatic organism drag itself up onto land? No.

Is evolution defined as aquatic organisms dragging themselves up on land? No.

It seems you are conflating the theory of evolution with the results of generations of evolution.

Are you using the term macroevolution in a scientific sense where it simply means a large number of generations or are you using the typical creationism definition which no creationist can actually seem to define properly?

Everyone can observe the results of evolution. Watch any living organism reproduce. Voila. At it's core, evolution is a theory about how reproduction with mutation can result in changes over generations. That's it. The span of evolution that one can observe depends on the reproduction rate of the organism in question.

Why is penicillin no longer as effective? Did a god decide to make bacteria ignore it OR has evolution taken place such that bacteria that survive contact reproduce and create resistant strains?

The physical data for evolution consists of extant remains from the past from which deductions are made.

Wrong again. The physical data for evolution is observable when one watches organisms reproduce and compares traits of offspring with parents. In the old days they did this by comparing fossils which is what you seem to be on about. Nowadays they use the genome of the organism to see what survives the transfer from parent to offspring. Insertion of retroviruses and mutated genes can be used to trace lineage. In other words, scientists now know some of the 'why' evolution is happening and can observe it.

This is not the same thing as direct witness, which is what I was talking about. Evolution has not been observed in the same way that the Loch Ness Monster has been observed. Ergo, there is more historical evidence for the LNM than for evolution.

Continuation of wrong. Evolution has been directly observed in the lab with bacteria. LNM has not been observed. Thus there is more evidence (i.e. there is some) for evolution than LNM.

If you don't believe the evidence for evolution you are always welcome to go do the physical research yourself. If you find something that refutes the theory, you are encouraged to publish your research and have it peer reviewed.

My belief in evolution is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the evidence for evolution would fail the test created by SallyF for the existence of God. That is the point I am trying to demonstrate and the point that so far has not even been touched by atheists.

Well this atheist is pointing out that one can observe evolution in the lab. Can one observe any gods in a lab?

My point is that the historical evidence for evolution (not paleontological or archeological evidence) is non-existent, whereas there is historical evidence for the Loch Ness Monster. Ergo, it is both accurate and possible to say that there is more\better historical evidence for the LNM than for evolution.

Depends exactly what you mean by historical evidence. If I send my genetic material off to a lab I can get a report back that traces my DNA back to certain regions. i.e. where my ancestors came from. They have multiple businesses doing this now. That seems to be historical evidence right in my own DNA. This can be observed, analyzed, statistically compared with other's DNA, etc. Seems pretty existent to me.

[CalvinsBulldog]

[Replying to post 17 by benchwarmer]

Is evolution defined as aquatic organisms dragging themselves up on land? No.

I never said that it was. It was an example of what I meant.

It seems you are conflating the theory of evolution with the results of generations of evolution.

I know what the theory of evolution is.

Are you using the term macroevolution in a scientific sense where it simply means a large number of generations or are you using the typical creationism definition which no creationist can actually seem to define properly?

In the scientific sense. And macroevolution does not simply mean a large number of generations. Where are you getting these definitions from?

Creationists use the term properly in my experience. Besides you are hardly in a position to criticise them, when you have just used the term improperly - or at least, deficiently. Macroevolution refers to major transformations of species. Macroevolution equates to a large-scale history of life and requires long periods of time. Microevolution by contrast relates to changes that happen over much shorter periods as forces act to alter the genes of a population.

Evolutionists also accept, by the way, that nobody can "see" macroevolution. They put this in writing. Which makes your stubborn rejection of this premise throughout this post a mystery.

Everyone can observe the results of evolution. Watch any living organism reproduce. Voila. At it's core, evolution is a theory about how reproduction with mutation can result in changes over generations. That's it. The span of evolution that one can observe depends on the reproduction rate of the organism in question.

That's not macroevolution. Changes to genes over a generation or two would fall into the category of microevolution. Confounding the two is an error I anticipate you will make many times for the length of this discussion.

Evolution as a theory is far more than that. If that was all evolution is then Darwin wasted a lot of time on his books and evolutionary biologists should all go home for lunch. The theory of evolution is fundamentally a theory of descent. It is not just how "mutations cause changes over generations".

Why is penicillin no longer as effective?

Has the pencillin transformed into a dinosaur? You are describing change within a population, not macroevolution.

Did a god decide to make bacteria ignore it OR has evolution taken place such that bacteria that survive contact reproduce and create resistant strains?

Irrelevant. This is not the sort of evolution we are looking for...

Wrong again. The physical data for evolution is observable when one watches organisms reproduce and compares traits of offspring with parents. In the old days they did this by comparing fossils which is what you seem to be on about. Nowadays they use the genome of the organism to see what survives the transfer from parent to offspring. Insertion of retroviruses and mutated genes can be used to trace lineage. In other words, scientists now know some of the 'why' evolution is happening and can observe it.

Funny how the evolutionary scientists at Berkeley disagree with you:

It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using all available evidence: geology, fossils, and living organisms.

You are conflating microevolution with macroevolution. You do realise that these terms are not "bad" and "wrong" because creationists use them, and that they actually have meaningful content? They describe two different things. You appear not to know the difference. Your entire paragraph refers to microevolution as if this is proof that bacteria become dinosaurs. It is not.

Nobody disputes that significant changes can occur within populations. Not even Christians.

Continuation of wrong. Evolution has been directly observed in the lab with bacteria. LNM has not been observed. Thus there is more evidence (i.e. there is some) for evolution than LNM.

You're so confident in your error it's sad. No, species level transformations (macroevolution) have not been observed in a lab. Ever. To do so would require many millions of years of observation. Stop being silly.

Well this atheist is pointing out that one can observe evolution in the lab. Can one observe any gods in a lab?

Uh, hello. You cannot observe macroevolution. By definition. You (and nobody else) saw humans evolve\descend from an ape ancestor. There is no historical evidence (as opposed to palentological\archeological) for this or any other species-level transformations. Ergo, the original point stands. There is better historical evidence for the LNM than for evolution. Since at least there is some historical evidence for the LNM. There is none for evolution.

The original debating point has not been touched.

Depends exactly what you mean by historical evidence. If I send my genetic material off to a lab I can get a report back that traces my DNA back to certain regions. i.e. where my ancestors came from. They have multiple businesses doing this now. That seems to be historical evidence right in my own DNA. This can be observed, analyzed, statistically compared with other's DNA, etc. Seems pretty existent to me.

Even if I considered that historical evidence - and I wouldn't - it still only demonstrates that you inherited genetic material from other humans around the world. How does that prove anything other than that your parents were humans and gentic information is passed on by reproduction. Do you think anyone disbelieves either premise? Do you think anyone conflates these premeses with evolution? Good gravy.

So you enter into evidence for evolution a DNA trace that proves your parents and grand-parents were humans. I can enter into evidence for the LNM 11 eyewitnesses, historical writings, several photographs, and the findings of a sonar sweep.

Even granting you the DNA trace (even if I think it is ridiculous), there is still more historical evidence for the LNM than for evolution.[/i]

[Zzyzx]

.

I wondered when you'd show up.

Oh WOW, a whole post devoted to Zzyzx personally. It is gratifying to be assured that my challenges to religious propaganda upset promoters to the extent that they abandon reasoned debate in favor of focusing on making personal remarks.

What an outstanding demonstration of Christian attitude for all to see.

The extreme has been death threats (on a different forum). In this Forum threats are grounds for immediate banishment, so expressions of anger, hostility, and hatred are lower keyed. However, personal comments are PROHIBITED by Forum Rules (which the prudent are well advised to read and abide). viewtopic.php?t=6

Those who have difficulty learning to debate without personal remarks, while amusing at times, tend to self-destruct – as evidenced by: viewforum.php?f=23&sid=110c111b275b3bbd23fe00208dbfb076

It also may be advisable to read viewtopic.php?t=9533 (and note its time stamp)

If you would be good enough to identify parts, if any, of your post #13 that pertain to the OP (rather than personal emotions), I will be happy to respond.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 17 by benchwarmer]

Is evolution defined as aquatic organisms dragging themselves up on land? No.

I never said that it was. It was an example of what I meant.

Fair enough. It seemed to be what you were implying.

It seems you are conflating the theory of evolution with the results of generations of evolution.

I know what the theory of evolution is.

It wasn't apparent in your post.

Are you using the term macroevolution in a scientific sense where it simply means a large number of generations or are you using the typical creationism definition which no creationist can actually seem to define properly?

In the scientific sense. And macroevolution does not simply mean a large number of generations. Where are you getting these definitions from?

Not it does not simply mean that, but what I was asking is what definition are YOU referring to. Creationists often throw these terms around as if microevolution and macroevolution are NOT based on the same mechanism. They are. One just involves much longer time frames (or more correctly, many more generations) such that speciation can occur. It's not a different mechanism, just a different line in the sand.

Creationists use the term properly in my experience.

You must be speaking to different creationists than I'm used to. Most I've encountered start talking about 'kinds' as if that is a defined term in biology. Oddly they can never define it themselves

Besides you are hardly in a position to criticise them, when you have just used the term improperly - or at least, deficiently.

I will concede that I was deficient as I was just trying to figure out what definition you were using and didn't give a full definition myself.

Macroevolution refers to major transformations of species. Macroevolution equates to a large-scale history of life and requires long periods of time. Microevolution by contrast relates to changes that happen over much shorter periods as forces act to alter the genes of a population.

Technically it's about the number of generations more than the time though obviously most organisms require long time periods to reproduce many generations.

It also involves environment, mutations, etc as fully described by the theory.

Evolutionists also accept, by the way, that nobody can "see" macroevolution. They put this in writing. Which makes your stubborn rejection of this premise throughout this post a mystery.

If by macroevolution you mean speciation, you are behind the times.


Biologists watch speciation in a laboratory flask
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 152743.htm

Everyone can observe the results of evolution. Watch any living organism reproduce. Voila. At it's core, evolution is a theory about how reproduction with mutation can result in changes over generations. That's it. The span of evolution that one can observe depends on the reproduction rate of the organism in question.

That's not macroevolution.

Did I say it was? I said evolution.

Changes to genes over a generation or two would fall into the category of microevolution. Confounding the two is an error I anticipate you will make many times for the length of this discussion.

Faulty opinion noted.

Evolution as a theory is far more than that. If that was all evolution is then Darwin wasted a lot of time on his books and evolutionary biologists should all go home for lunch. The theory of evolution is fundamentally a theory of descent. It is not just how "mutations cause changes over generations".

Clearly I was not giving a treatise on evolution, but simply providing a very high level definition. A far cry better than your "aquatic organisms dragging themselves up on land."

Why is penicillin no longer as effective?

Has the pencillin transformed into a dinosaur? You are describing change within a population, not macroevolution.

And you are jousting a strawman. I was giving an example of evolution, not trying to posit a croco-duck or other things that creationists love to bring up. Are you saying that penicillin has to become a dinosaur to be macroevolution? I thought you said you understood what evolution was?

Did a god decide to make bacteria ignore it OR has evolution taken place such that bacteria that survive contact reproduce and create resistant strains?

Irrelevant. This is not the sort of evolution we are looking for...

It might not be what YOU are looking for, but it is an example of evolution. The exact same theory applies over a few generations or millions of them.

Wrong again. The physical data for evolution is observable when one watches organisms reproduce and compares traits of offspring with parents. In the old days they did this by comparing fossils which is what you seem to be on about. Nowadays they use the genome of the organism to see what survives the transfer from parent to offspring. Insertion of retroviruses and mutated genes can be used to trace lineage. In other words, scientists now know some of the 'why' evolution is happening and can observe it.

Funny how the evolutionary scientists at Berkeley disagree with you:

It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using all available evidence: geology, fossils, and living organisms.

You keep doing this. I'm taking about evolution and you keep saying "that's not macroevolution" as if that's some kind of retort. Yes, we can't 'see' the entire history for most organisms as they go through speciation type events. Though the link I provided above shows that they actually are starting to be able to do this with some organisms.

You are conflating microevolution with macroevolution.

No, you keep assuming I mean macroevolution when I'm just talking about evolution.

You do realise that these terms are not "bad" and "wrong" because creationists use them, and that they actually have meaningful content? They describe two different things. You appear not to know the difference. Your entire paragraph refers to microevolution as if this is proof that bacteria become dinosaurs. It is not.

Holy strawman! Where did I say it was proof bacteria become dinosaurs? Care to quote me on that? Or retract?

I have no problem with the terms microevolution and macroevolution if they are used correctly. They just convey different spans of evolution. They do not encompass different theories at their base.

Nobody disputes that significant changes can occur within populations. Not even Christians.

Yes, it's hard to deny the mountain of evidence for such changes these days. Most 'evolution deniers' now accept microevolution (no speciation) and continue to reject macroevolution (speciation) all the while unable to describe exactly where the line in the sand is such that one can be accepted and the other tossed.

Continuation of wrong. Evolution has been directly observed in the lab with bacteria. LNM has not been observed. Thus there is more evidence (i.e. there is some) for evolution than LNM.

You're so confident in your error it's sad. No, species level transformations (macroevolution) have not been observed in a lab. Ever. To do so would require many millions of years of observation. Stop being silly.

See link above. I look forward to the retraction.