« first day (589 days earlier)      last day (1266 days later) » 

Jas 3.1
Jas 3.1
6:13 AM
@TRiG How do you convert someone to Evolutionism? Take a naive Christian kid and send them to high school. How do you convert someone to Creationism? Take a highly-educated, open-minded Evolutionist and teach him to research the topic for himself.
@TRiG How many reputable scientists have to convert to YEC before you stop calling it gossip?
...and Google searches don't count as research.
I set my three-year-old son on my lap one time, and placed his toy car in the middle of the bed. I asked him where the car was, and he answered correctly. I then "drove" the car a few inches to the right. I asked him where it was, and he answered correctly. I asked him if it used to be in the middle of the bed, and he answered correctly. I asked him if it used to be on the left side of the bed. He answered correctly: "no."
...thank God my son was not an Evolutionist, or he would have told me that the toy car used to be 600 billion miles to the left of my bed.
@BruceAlderman observing genetic decay in a lab does not mean humans evolved from ape-like creatures. That is an idea someone had before there was any knowledge of genetic decay. Equating the two is like equating the fact that I "drove" my kids car a few inches to the idea that it used to be 600 billion miles to the left of my bed.
(Besides, genetic decay should lead an honest scientist to believe that our ancestors were more evolved, not less. But that is a separate issue.)
 
fredsbend
fredsbend
6:33 AM
@BruceAlderman I am not arguing that. One is facts and the other is deduction. That is the point. I just want to keep the discussion on topic: Fossil Record and the age of the earth. Those must support Evolution.
I don't want to be bombarded with "bacteria x did whatever so Evolution is fact" nonsense.
So let's start it then. Give me the most prominent fossil that supports Evolution, in your opinion. Human is more fun, but other is fine too.
 
Jas 3.1
Jas 3.1
6:49 AM
@fredsbend I've done this sort of thing enough times to know how this will turn out. You will be shooting a moving target. No matter how many things you refute, there will always be an excuse. It will end with a new "cutting edge" example that hasn't been adequately studied yet. Their arguments will amount to name-calling, and quotes from other Evolutionists. You will walk away feeling victorious because you answered everything adequately. None of it will have any impact on them.
The fact is, the blind cannot see truth, and are unwilling to see truth. It is for this reason that I have totally lost interest in debating with non-believers.
I greatly enjoy discussing these issues with believers, however -- because often times they are actually interested in the truth, no matter what the cost to themselves and their prior beliefs.
I was an Evolutionist before I became a believer. After I was born again I had someone ask me about Genesis, and I realized I wasn't actually sure what the truth was about that yet. I began a decade-long investigation into the truth, and ended up an ardent YEC. So I know personally that the research can be very fruitful once you are willing to find the truth. On the other hand, I have never heard of any non-Christian converting to YEC. There is a reason for that.
Anyway, I'm sure you'll have fun. Just don't expect much in the way of fruit.
 
 
6 hours later…
TRiG
TRiG
1:04 PM
@Jas3.1 Really? Interesting.
@Jas3.1 A few that actually know what they're talking about, and are experts on relevant subjects, and base their conclusions on the preponderance of the evidence, and can back up their arguments with research. (Picking holes is, as ever, easier than actually building up a case.)
I've read a reasonable amount of Creationist gumph, and most of it relies on actively lying.
They quote stuff out of context (a very very common example is some of Darwin's musings on the eye, which Creationists often quote out of context in a way which makes Darwin seem to be saying the opposite of what he actually was saying); they fight in the wrong place while lying about their own motivations (it's clear they're waging a cultural battle, not a scientific one, because of their choice of battleground).
Oh, and goalposts move all the freaking time.
Also, they slander science and scientists, and lie to their followers about what science looks like.
> Creationism is essentially empty of any of that "doing-science" stuff. It's all argument and no experiment. If all you know is Creationism, and similarly cut-down astronomy and geology and psychology, it's going to look like that is what scientists do. This is a fundamental error of fact, and it also makes it a lot easier to disregard scientists.
 
 
3 hours later…
Jas 3.1
Jas 3.1
4:28 PM
@TRiG I think I understand where your confusion lies now. You equate science with the Theory of Evolution which claims to explain the history of the human race. Science is methodological experimentation and observation for the purpose of making statistically significant predictions. (1) science can never give you certainty, and thus, can never prove "truth" -- by its very nature it must be open to adjustment and correction. (2) science does not tell you what did happen, but what is likely
...and by "likely" I mean if nothing unexplained or supernatural happens
@TRiG The problem with this is that there have been thousands of such scientists, but as soon as a credible scientist converts to Creationism, he is suddenly not "credible" anymore. If we applied the same criteria to the founders of the Theory of Evolution it would be a joke. Darwin based all of his musings on the external form of creatures... how much more simple-minded and ignorant can you get?!
...and I don't mean that Darwin was incorrect (though he was in many things), I just mean that he was highly uninformed and unaware of the intricacy of genetics and the causes behind morphology
 
TRiG
TRiG
 
Jas 3.1
Jas 3.1
"The list pokes fun at such endeavors to make it clear that, "We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!"" I'm not aware of any Creationist who would claim that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists... clearly the Theory of Evolution is believed by far more scientists than Creationism is. This is a strawman, and is typical of the ignorant scoffing I am used to hearing...
...honestly I don't know why I bother
 
TRiG
TRiG
@Jas3.1 No, it's not ignorant scoffing. It's informed scoffing. There's a difference.
@Jas3.1 Yes. There's far far more evidence to support evolution than Darwin ever dreamed of. A lot of evidence comes from molecular biology and comparative genetic studies.
 
Jas 3.1
Jas 3.1
@TRiG To think that "Project Steve" would have any relevance to the Creationist position is ignorant. It is a total misunderstanding and misrepresentation of our view. The only reason Creationists even bother making such lists (which are far from complete) is to show Evolutionists that they are incorrect in their claims that Creationists are ignorant of science. The lists provide evidence that the attack is ignorant.
@TRiG Are you a molecular biologist? Or have you spent time researching comparative genetics?
 
TRiG
TRiG
@Jas3.1 Nope.
 
Jas 3.1
Jas 3.1
4:38 PM
@TRiG = ignorant
 
TRiG
TRiG
As I've said before, I have great respect for experts, for people who put in the work, and it pains me to see them slandered by frauds. I hold Gillian McKeith and Ken Ham in about the same regard.
 
Jas 3.1
Jas 3.1
@TRiG I have great respect for experts, for people who put in the work, and it pains me to see them slandered by the ignorant. Many of these experts are Creationists. So please stop slandering them.
@TRiG Anyway, I will agree with you that many Creationists are ignorant and disrespectful. My point is that the same is true for many Evolutionists.
@TRiG FWIW, someone very close to me is a molecular biologist, and did their graduate work in comparative genetics, studying under a prodigy in his field. This person went into the field expecting to find extensive evidence in support of the Theory of Evolution, but instead, found that the entire thing is based on assumptions and imagination when you get down to the source material and logic behind the computer simulations. I found the same thing when I researched it.
 
TRiG
TRiG
@Jas3.1 I'm supposed to be in work today.
I do have some creationist literature I keep meaning to go through on my blog, but that's one of many many things I find it difficult to motivate myself to start. (I suspect I have some low-grade depression, actually, as I often find it difficult to motivate myself.)
 
Jas 3.1
Jas 3.1
4:54 PM
@TRiG I hesitate to say this, but honestly, most Creationist literature is like most Evolutionist literature... secondary sources written with an agenda. Unfortunately it takes a lot of work to get back to the source material, and it's pretty technical. But it can be done. (It just takes a lot of time!!)
 
TRiG
TRiG
@Jas3.1 Well, a synthesis of sources is what you need, but it's going to be damn-near impossible to find one that's free of some sort of bias. (Talk Origins is an interesting read.)
 
 
2 hours later…
fredsbend
fredsbend
6:59 PM
@TRiG "The primary reason for this archive's existence is to provide mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) that appear in the talk.origins newsgroup and the frequently rebutted assertions of those advocating intelligent design or other creationist pseudosciences."
@TRiG Maybe it's good, maybe it's not. But right on the front page they claim their purpose is to debunk Creation and uphold Evolution.
12 hours ago, by fredsbend
So let's start it then. Give me the most prominent fossil that supports Evolution, in your opinion. Human is more fun, but other is fine too.
@TRiG ^^^
 
Alypius
Alypius
Out of curiosity, who is trying to change whose mind?
Is the idea that the "evolutionists" here are trying to give evidence for evolution to "creationists", or vice-versa?
 
fredsbend
fredsbend
7:15 PM
@Alypius I'm hoping someone will show me what they think is the best fossil evidence for Evolution. I plan to refute it. So I'm on the YEC side along with Jas. TRiG, Wax, El, and Bruce are on a side not YEC.
 
Alypius
Alypius
Ok... do you have any criteria set up by which you would say "oh, well... I guess you're right"? Usually having those around helps people come up with good examples.
What sort of fossil evidence would you accept?
 
fredsbend
fredsbend
@Alypius Any. It needs to be convincing to you.
 
El'endia Starman
El'endia Starman
As it happens, I don't focus my belief in Evolution upon fossil evidence. Rather, my main strengths and weaknesses for either side tend to be crucial in nature. For instance, Creationism/Intelligent Design fails as a Science because it cannot make predictions, at least not nearly so well as Evolution. On the other side, genetic decay due to mutations was a good counter-argument until I learned that cells sometimes copy genes twice, which allows one copy to mutate non-harmfully.
I'm like this in a lot of areas of life: I don't base my beliefs on a wide body of evidence, but rather on a few crucial posts. Probably because it allows me more time to pursue my other interests. :P
Though, come to think of it, I'm a strong advocate for the idea of "Simple rules, complex behavior. Complex rules, stupid behavior." Thus, if I can take a few foundational things (beliefs, practices, facts, etc.) and derive all the rest from those, then that is much better than taking a vast number of derivative things without understanding why those are the right ones.
 
Alypius
Alypius
@fredsbend No, I mean... what sort of evidence would be convincing to you? (Obviously, the evidence I might find convincing might not be the sort you would.)
 
TRiG
TRiG
7:35 PM
> Fossil rabbits in the pre-Cambrian.
 
Alypius
Alypius
@TRiG Would that actually be enough? Imagine actually finding a very rabbit-like fossil.
 
TRiG
TRiG
@Alypius A Precambrian rabbit (or any other mammal) would certainly give the theory a bit of a shake.
(There's a reason I marked my comment as a quote, by the way.)
(And I'm very glad SE has upgraded chat to allow quotes and replies to work together. They used not to.)
 
Alypius
Alypius
@TRiG Why was that?
 
TRiG
TRiG
Precambrian rabbit
At one time, "Precambrian rabbits" or "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian" rock samples became popular imagery in debates about the validity of the theory of evolution and the scientific field of evolutionary biology. The images are reported to have been among responses given by the biologist, J.B.S. Haldane, when he was asked what evidence could destroy his confidence in the theory and the field of study. Many of his statements about his scientific research were popularized in his lifetime. Some accounts use this response to rebut claims that the theory of evolution is not falsifiable by ...
 
Alypius
Alypius
@TRiG Not sure that it would overturn evolution, though. It would just show that evolution (exactly as it is now) does not explain all life.
 
TRiG
TRiG
7:46 PM
> Philosopher Peter Godfrey-Smith doubted that a single set of anachronistic fossils, however, even rabbits in the Precambrian, would disprove the theory of evolution outright. ... Even if the "Precambrian rabbits" turned out to be genuine, they would not instantly refute the theory of evolution, because that theory is a large package of ideas
 
Alypius
Alypius
@TRiG Roughly, yes. In any case, it doesn't seem to be a way to falsify the theory.
 
TRiG
TRiG
@Alypius It would be a way to start, mind you.
 
Alypius
Alypius
"No rabbits in the Precambrian" is a falsifiable statement, but not one that would falsify evolution.
 
El'endia Starman
El'endia Starman
Such evidence would definitely falsify the theory as we know it. At the very least, modifications would have to be made, but given that there's so much other evidence for evolution, the theory wouldn't all come crashing down like a house of cards.
 
Alypius
Alypius
@El'endiaStarman Does the theory posit that all life whatsoever will have arisen at the appropriate times through the process of evolution, and originating from the same tree?
 
TRiG
TRiG
7:51 PM
@El'endiaStarman That's pretty much it, yes. And nor should we expect it to. The theory of evolution does not depend on tenuous chains of logic deduced from one or two observations: it has a wide supporting base, and as such, would survive one or two attacks.
 
Alypius
Alypius
Is there a better falsifiable claim?
 
TRiG
TRiG
@Alypius Origin of life is, technically, a separate subject from evolution proper, though certainly not an unrelated topic. The question of whether life arose once or a few times independently is unlikely to ever be conclusively settled, but I believe the general consensus is that the preponderance of evidence favours a single origin. (The mapping of DNA bases to amino acids is remarkably consistent across species, which is one line of evidence for a single origin.)
 
El'endia Starman
El'endia Starman
@Alypius Hmmm. I'm not sure it touches that claim at all. I'd say "yes", but only because it's almost inconceivable that there could be two wholly-separate trees of life. Aaand TRiG just put forth a good support for that.
 
Alypius
Alypius
@TRiG Not the origin of life. The origin of a particular life (creature)
 
TRiG
TRiG
@Alypius Huh? I'm not understanding the question.
 
El'endia Starman
El'endia Starman
7:55 PM
Speaking of which, I believe the origin of life to be a God-event. As in, He created the first life-forms from scratch and then let evolution take its course.
 
TRiG
TRiG
@Alypius Ah. Yes, we think there's probably only one tree.
 
Alypius
Alypius
@El'endiaStarman It should be very conceivable, because if two trees started due to peculiar hospitable conditions on earth, it would be impossible for them to interbreed, so they would remain separate.
 
TRiG
TRiG
@El'endiaStarman Have you ever come across Douglas Adams' plane-flight analogy for understanding origins?
 
El'endia Starman
El'endia Starman
@TRiG I don't think so.
 
Alypius
Alypius
@TRiG Suppose you found a rabbit in the Precam. Evolution does not say "you won't find rabbits there". It doesn't claim to explain the existence of every object that we find, and how it got to where it did.
@TRiG I hope you're not saying that a second tree would falsify evolution :)
 
TRiG
TRiG
7:59 PM
> Imagine, if you will, the following scenario. One Tuesday, a person is spotted in a street in London, doing something criminal. .... The problem is this: the person who was clearly seen and identified on the street in London on Tuesday was seen by someone else, an equally reliable witness, on the street in Santa Fe on the same Tuesday - how could that possibly be?
@Alypius Nope. I'm saying that a second tree seems unlikely given the evidence to hand.
 
El'endia Starman
El'endia Starman
@Alypius Hrm. If anything, it would provide more support for a naturalistic explanation of the world. And aliens, especially. Because, after all, if life can arise and evolve on Earth twice, it can do so on other worlds.
 
Alypius
Alypius
@El'endiaStarman Unless the conditions here are improbably peculiar. And yes, it would provide support.
 
El'endia Starman
El'endia Starman
@Alypius I'm with you on that - I'm on the side that says this planet is in a fantastically superb position to observe the universe (and for life to evolve), and thus that was God's doing.
Interestingly enough, I think it's accurate to say that I'm a universe-Creationist and a life-Evolutionist.
 
Alypius
Alypius
@TRiG Sounds like a good way to begin to explain how we can't understand God's actions.
 
El'endia Starman
El'endia Starman
@TRiG In other words, just because we have no naturalistic explanation, don't use God to provide the explanation.
 
TRiG
TRiG
8:06 PM
@El'endiaStarman Pretty much. (Better with context: it's a good speech.)
 
El'endia Starman
El'endia Starman
@TRiG Also a long speech. I've declined to spend time on reading it.
 
TRiG
TRiG
@El'endiaStarman Heh. You could read that paragraph, which is short enough and works reasonably well out of context.
 
Alypius
Alypius
@El'endiaStarman I'm a life Creationist and Sustainist. I'm probably about as much a proponent of evolution as you are, though.
 
El'endia Starman
El'endia Starman
@TRiG I did read that paragraph. I read the first two, I think, and then just skimmed the beginnings of the paragraphs for the one you quoted from.
@Alypius [tilts head]...it feels to me like I'm referring to life after the origin and you're referring to life at the origin. Is that right?
 
Alypius
Alypius
@TRiG It tries to argue that a lack of apparent scientific explanation shouldn't preclude the absence of one. Replace the word "scientific" with "Divine", and you get the Christian response to every single case of science being used to disprove or take something away from God.
@TRiG "wow, this creature is amazing, as if designed" -> "it was produced by natural process, not a designer" -> "wow, this natural process is amazing, as if made by a Designer".
@El'endiaStarman I think that... well, actually, perhaps the above comment to TRiG answers it?
 
El'endia Starman
El'endia Starman
8:16 PM
@Alypius Hahaha, that's the way I think of it too. I think that does answer my question, though not directly.
 
Alypius
Alypius
@El'endiaStarman Though perhaps it doesn't. I think that "evolution" is just a way to describe the operation of things that are created and sustained by God.
@El'endiaStarman For you, God sustains the natural process, right? I think we talked about this before, but I hadn't asked you this question.
 
El'endia Starman
El'endia Starman
@Alypius Sounds about right. In the past, I've reflected on how truly random numbers (such as radioactive decay) are truly controlled by God, but act so precisely like randomness that there's no practical difference. Thus, evolution and physics and the like are much the same.
@Alypius Yes, I do believe God keeps everything going. However, I think that's pretty much exclusively philosophical and has no practical effect.
 
Alypius
Alypius
@El'endiaStarman Yep. Randomness is only randomness relative to our ignorance of the generating mechanism.
@El'endiaStarman Well, the practical effect is if God "stopped" doing that, we would all stop.
 
El'endia Starman
El'endia Starman
@Alypius And what would we care about that? Would we ever know?
 
Alypius
Alypius
@El'endiaStarman Depends. If God stopped only the physical, then yes. Presumably one option is that we would all end up before Him.
 
El'endia Starman
El'endia Starman
8:24 PM
@Alypius Aye, there is indeed the spiritual aspect to consider. (And the soul, perhaps.)
 
Alypius
Alypius
I suppose He could if he wanted make half the universe stop existing.
 
El'endia Starman
El'endia Starman
@Alypius There's nothing stopping Him from doing so, other than perhaps His nature of consistency.
 
Alypius
Alypius
@El'endiaStarman I don't know if consistency is part of His nature (God's nature is a bit too... Simple), or if His nature could "stop" itself. But I get your point - God gave us reason, and our reason tells us He would not suddenly blink half the universe out of existence. Especially if that half contained humans, because of His promise to Noah.
(For example, we don't say that love is in God's nature. We just say "God is Love"; and we don't say existence is in His nature. But we do just say that God is I AM.)
 
El'endia Starman
El'endia Starman
8:39 PM
@Alypius In the sense I'm using, God's nature IS Love because God is Love. That make sense?
 
Alypius
Alypius
@El'endiaStarman Yes, unless we start getting into the two natures of Christ. And I'd prefer "God is Eternal" to "God is consistent", but that might be getting into another meaning.
 
El'endia Starman
El'endia Starman
@Alypius Yeah, that's a different sense of "nature". Anyway, according to the laws of this universe, any change in state must be accompanied by a change in time. Thus, if God is eternal, He is also unchanging, which is also affirmed by Scripture (the famous Hebrews 13:8) and heavily implies consistency.
 
Alypius
Alypius
9:12 PM
@El'endiaStarman But not consistency with respect to the approach He takes to nature (the changing physical world is already infinitely more "variant" than God). If your point is that God is not like a "god of chaos", then yes, that seems right.
On occasion, He does do whatever He wants with the laws of nature, though.
 
El'endia Starman
El'endia Starman
Aye. Agreed.
 
 
1 hour later…
Jas 3.1
Jas 3.1
10:21 PM
@TRiG It is not near impossible; it is impossible. Data requires interpretation, and as both Creationists and Evolutionists have realized of the other side, everyone has a worldview through which they interpret the data. Christians presuppose God's involvement, while naturalists presuppose His lack of involvement. This is the root of the disagreement; it is philosophical -- theological, in fact -- not scientific.
@Alypius Everyone here has their own agenda. Mine is (1) to encourage Christian Creationists and non-Christian Evolutionists to both recognize the futility of debating eachother, since the core of the debate is in the philosophical/theological worldview behind each camp's interpretation of the data, and not in the data itself... (2) to urge non-Christians Evolutionists to stop acting like the people they most despise, and... (3) to encourage Christians to trust the revealed word of God
@El'endiaStarman Creationism is not a science. Neither is the Theory of Evolution. They are attempts at explaining the past by joining philosophical frameworks with scientific observations.
@El'endiaStarman Creationism makes the same sorts of predictions as the Theory of Evolution. Creationists expect genetic decay to prevail over time, while Evolutionists expect genetic improvement over time. Of course, I see the evidence as clearly in favor of Creationism, but I suspect the "other side" would disagree with that assessment.
 
El'endia Starman
El'endia Starman
10:39 PM
@Jas3.1 You do know what "Theory" means in the context of Science, right?
 
Jas 3.1
Jas 3.1
@TRiG Would you only accept rabbits? That is a bit specific. How about other fossils which are virtually indistinguishable from modern creatures? Living Fossils
@El'endiaStarman Yes. But the Theory of Evolution does much more than develop rules to explain observations; it makes historical claims. Also, at the root of the Theory is a philosophical framework (assumptions, presuppositions, bias, etc.)
 
El'endia Starman
El'endia Starman
@Jas3.1 The Theory of Gravity also allows us to make historical claims. Same goes for the Theories of General and Special Relativity. Such is not a valid objection to the Theory of Evolution.
 
Jas 3.1
Jas 3.1
@El'endiaStarman RE: "so much other evidence for evolution" (sigh)
@El'endiaStarman It is not an objection to the Theory of Evolution; it is a clarification that the Theory is not based solely on science. The Theory is the result of the interpretation of data through a philosophical framework that is built on presuppositions and bias.
 
El'endia Starman
El'endia Starman
@Jas3.1 If Evolution's status as a Theory is a correct one, then there has to be a large body of evidence.
 
Jas 3.1
Jas 3.1
@El'endiaStarman It is popularly called a Theory, but of course I object to this, if you want to get technical. But semantics aside, I have never been able to find any evidence that is explicitly in support of this Theory over the claims of Scripture.
 
El'endia Starman
El'endia Starman
10:50 PM
@Jas3.1 And that position rests on Scripture being infallible, correct?
 
Jas 3.1
Jas 3.1
@El'endiaStarman The lack of evidence to justify the Theory does not rest on Scripture, but the evidence supporting Scripture does, I suppose. (I may be misunderstanding your question.)
 
El'endia Starman
El'endia Starman
@Jas3.1 I'm basically assuming that from your view, the Theory status of Evolution is wrong because it would contradict Scripture, which would need to be infallible at the least to support such a stance.
 
Jas 3.1
Jas 3.1
@El'endiaStarman I think I see what you're saying, and I think that is an inaccurate assessment. I will try to articulate more clearly. (One moment, I want to choose my words carefully.)
 
TRiG
TRiG
11:07 PM
@Jas3.1 I mention rabbits specifically because that's a well-known remark. As it happens, I personally was more impressed by evidence from genetics.
 
Jas 3.1
Jas 3.1
@El'endiaStarman A scientific Theory ought to be based on extensive (carefully controlled) experimentation. It should enable you to make predictions in future experiments, and the results should be essentially invariable from the predictions. It should be carefully scrutinized by skeptics, and found to be rock-solid. Only then should it be called a Theory. Once it has this status, it can be used to give probable explanations in any similar situation. The "Theory" of Evolution fails in every case...
(1) It is not based on experimentation, but on observation and imagination.
(2) The evidence from genetics indicates the opposite of what the Theory would anticipate: widespread, snowballing genetic decay. A more "scientific" Theory would predict that the ancestors of modern species were more advanced genetically.
 
TRiG
TRiG
@Jas3.1 Define please: "advanced".
@Jas3.1 You try telling Drosophila that there's no experimentation behind evolution.
 
Jas 3.1
Jas 3.1
(3) The skeptics of the Theory of Evolution (which are many -- even amongst Atheists) are outraged that it is still being taught
(4) The Theory is not merely applied to similar situations, but presupposes that all situations are similar. Naturalism is presupposed, and so Divine intervention is ruled out as a possibility. I mean come on... ruling out the possibility of God acting?! That is some claim.
@TRiG The Theory of Evolution is based on observation and imagination. This is History 101. I am not claiming that there is no experimentation behind evolution. I am claiming that the Theory of Evolution is not based on extensive (carefully controlled) experimentation. It is (and always was) based on observation and imagination, with both colored by philosophical predispositions.
 
El'endia Starman
El'endia Starman
@Jas3.1 If a mundane answer exists, pick it over the miraculous.
 
Jas 3.1
Jas 3.1
11:23 PM
@El'endiaStarman Did Jesus rise from the dead?
 
El'endia Starman
El'endia Starman
@Jas3.1 No mundane answer exists that explains the 500+ witnesses, historical veracity, the apostles' change in behavior, the four first-hand accounts, etc...
 
Jas 3.1
Jas 3.1
@El'endiaStarman Anyway, to answer your question, the Theory status of Evolution is wrong by the nature of scientific Theory. I do believe the Scriptures are inerrant, but that is a distinct challenge to the Theory. Christians are not the only people who see the error in the Theory.
 
TRiG
TRiG
@El'endiaStarman ahem
 
Jas 3.1
Jas 3.1
@El'endiaStarman (phew.) And yet a naturalist would say "no." Why? Because they presuppose naturalism. That is one of the problems with the Theory of Evolution: it is used to disprove the miraculous intervention of God in human history, when in fact, it presupposes that He will not (or cannot).
 
El'endia Starman
El'endia Starman
@TRiG Written style of language that supports an interpretation as non-fictitious.
 
TRiG
TRiG
11:28 PM
@Jas3.1 What it may be used for is completely irrelevant to its status as truth.
@El'endiaStarman shrug Another time, perhaps.
 
El'endia Starman
El'endia Starman
@TRiG Yes, another time.
So, I'll restate.
If a mundane explanation explains the evidence well, then it's probably better to pick than a miraculous explanation.
Occam's Razor, basically.
(Combined with not taking the easy way out.)
 
Jas 3.1
Jas 3.1
@TRiG I agree, which is why I articulated my introduction to "problem 4" as: "Once it has this status, it can be used to give probable explanations in any similar situation." I am attempting to show that in addition to the 3 problems already mentioned with even calling it a Theory, the Theory is misapplied (problem 4)
@El'endiaStarman Separate topic, but why do you believe Occam's Razor?
 
TRiG
TRiG
Well, I've replied to "problems" 1, 2, and 4. I'm ignoring 3, because it's completely irrelevant to anything.
 
Jas 3.1
Jas 3.1
@TRiG Peer review is irrelevant? That's creative.
 
TRiG
TRiG
@Jas3.1 If you were talking about peer review in that statement, you're going to have to work on your writing clarity.
 
El'endia Starman
El'endia Starman
11:33 PM
@Jas3.1 'cause it works. For some reason, the most simple explanation is most likely to be correct. This is true pretty much everywhere. Many fundamental mathematical relationships/theories/etc. are simple, not complex. I remember one specific time where an algorithm I programmed didn't work with complex code, but when I scratched and started again, a simple solution worked perfectly.
 
Jas 3.1
Jas 3.1
@TRiG "It should be carefully scrutinized by skeptics, and found to be rock-solid." Would you prefer to define peer review as "review by people who share your presuppositions and bias"?
 
TRiG
TRiG
@Jas3.1 Your focus appeared to be on curricula, rather than science, in that statement.
 
Jas 3.1
Jas 3.1
@TRiG As an example, humans have a broken gene for Vitamin C production. I would expect an intellectually honest Theory to posit that our ancestors had a functional gene... not to posit that this complex mechanism is in the process of slowly developing into a functional gene despite statistical probabilities.
@TRiG My focus is on the criteria for labeling something a "Theory".
 
TRiG
TRiG
@Jas3.1 How does our Vit C gene compare to that of our nearer and more distant relatives?
(That's not a leading question: I don't know the answer, but I do know it's a relevant question.)
 
Jas 3.1
Jas 3.1
@El'endiaStarman The Gospels teach that Jesus (and Peter) walked on water. Naturalists would say that He did not, assuming naturalism. What is the simple explanation?
@TRiG What relatives?!
 
El'endia Starman
El'endia Starman
11:43 PM
@Jas3.1 Hmmm. I didn't think evolution required species to only improve. If I recall, the current explanation for why a broken Vit C gene didn't doom the species is that the species already had a diet with Vit C.
 
Jas 3.1
Jas 3.1
@TRiG Anyway, don't miss my point: that is how I am defining "advanced". It is like my car... over time it wears out and breaks down. Now, maybe some oil leaks out of my engine and lands on a bearing, enabling it to function more efficiently, temporarily, but over time the trend is clear: the thing is falling apart!
What we observe in the lab is devolution not evolution.
 
TRiG
TRiG
@Jas3.1 Ah, I knew the Welsh Assembly would somehow be relevant to this conversation.
 
El'endia Starman
El'endia Starman
@TRiG I know chimpanzees also have a broken Vit C gene, and maybe one other primate species. All the rest of the primates (including apes, I think) and mammals have a working Vit C gene.
 
Jas 3.1
Jas 3.1
@El'endiaStarman It was not meant as a refutation to the Theory. It was meant as an illustration of what I mean by "more advanced."
 
TRiG
TRiG
@El'endiaStarman In other words, the standard explanation is exactly the one @Jas suggested an "intellectually honest" theory would advance.
 
Jas 3.1
Jas 3.1
11:46 PM
@TRiG Ability to invent explanations does not justify calling something a Theory.
 
El'endia Starman
El'endia Starman
@Jas3.1 Given the overwhelming number of miracles that Jesus performed, it's simpler to assume that walking on water was a miracle. (Of course, this is set against the backdrop of the New Testament [and (almost) the whole Bible] being historically accurate. E.g., Jesus was real and did perform miracles as corroborated by eyewitnesses.)
@TRiG Correct. I was a bit puzzled to see that in Jas' message.
 
Jas 3.1
Jas 3.1
@El'endiaStarman Wow.
 
TRiG
TRiG
@Jas3.1 Well, it kinda does, actually.
 
El'endia Starman
El'endia Starman
@Jas3.1 Yeah, my biceps are impressive, aren't they? :P
 
Jas 3.1
Jas 3.1
@El'endiaStarman I meant "wow" as in... "unbelievably frustrating". TRiG was confused about what I meant by "more advanced" and I was explaining what I meant. Now take what we have observed with the Vit C gene as a scientific data point. The Creationist would say "of course things are breaking... and they will continue to break." The Theory of Evolution in general believes that the Vit C gene evolved from nothing.
...and that all genes did so.
...and that we should expect this sort of "advancement" to continue.
It is completely contra-science.
@TRiG Can I quote you on that? All you need to do in order to call something a scientific Theory is to be able to invent explanations for everything you observe? That's pretty weak.
 
TRiG
TRiG
11:56 PM
@Jas3.1 It's counterintuitive at times, I'll grant you that.
@Jas3.1 Well, kinda is intended as a way of signalling that this was not intended as an absolute statement.
A Theory that explains anything explains nothing.
However, a Theory which provides explanations for things we do observe, and does not also provide equally reasonable explanations for things we don't observe, may be onto something.
 
Jas 3.1
Jas 3.1
@TRiG Do we observe God intervening in human history?
 
Alypius
Alypius
@TRiG What is an explanation?
 
TRiG
TRiG
@Jas3.1 Probably not.
 

« first day (589 days earlier)      last day (1266 days later) »