An important aspect of science is being open to and even seeking out that which might disprove your theory.

[image]While i am no scientist, to this end i would like to hear from you folks regarding what [i]evidence[/i] you feel shows that evolution [c=#BF0000]didn't happen or couldn't happen[/c].

Also, if you have any questions or criticisms of evolution theory, i would be happy to address them to the best of my ability.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

BibleData · M

@Pikachu [quote]If you think creationism accurately represents the world then you should be able to explain observed natural processes using creationism as a foundation. That's not something creation is very useful for which is telling.[/quote]

It isn't necessary to use creation for that and since it isn't you needn't feel threatened. If there were no creationism there wouldn't be evolution. The evolution vs creation debate is the pointless exercise of ideologues.

[quote]If a human has all the characteristics of a mammal, at which point do they stop being a mammal just because they have additional characteristics?[/quote]

Wherever science says, according to science. I've given you the definition of the Biblical kinds.

[quote]If a human has all the characteristics of a mammal, at which point do they stop being a mammal just because they have additional characteristics?[/quote]

That was my question and I have no idea. My perspective is very simple.

This is a man

And this is an animal

Scientifically you can categorize them however you like, but from a Biblical perspective one was made in the image of God and the other wasn't.

[quote]If a human has all the characteristics of an ape, at which point do they stop being an ape just because they have additional characteristics specific to them?[/quote]

If all of the characteristics were the same they would be the same. Do the images above reflect that? Discounting humans, how many apes do you have in your social circle? From your scientific perspective exactly what characteristics are the same? Evolution, like eugenics, and much of science, is inherently racist as is theology of that time. It reflects the interest of those with the money and society at large respectively.

[quote]Another example: If birds have all the characteristics of dinosaurs, at which point do they stop being dinosaurs just because they have additional characteristics that are unique to birds?[/quote]

As I said earlier: The Biblical kinds appear to constitute divisions of life forms in which each allows for cross fertility . The boundary between is drawn where fertilization ceases to occur. A species is "a sort; a kind; variety" any group of interfertile animals or plants mutually possessing one or more distinctive characteristics. There could be many species within a single division of a Biblical kind. There is no evidence for any new "kinds" ever having been formed since creation.

So, if they can reproduce fertile offspring they are the same, if they can't they're not the same.

[quote] Evolution allows us to predict what should exist in the world before we discover that it indeed does.[/quote]

Predict something. I suspect that if you called creation evolution without knowing it was creation you could make the same predictions. Some right, some not.

[quote]The Bible has no predictive power.[/quote]

Perhaps we have different ideas about what prediction are.

In the 6th century BCE Babylon was the dominant world power. Daniel the prophet had a vision of two symbolic animals; a ram having two horns. An angel explained to Daniel: "The ram that you saw possessing the two horns stands for the kings of Media and Persia."

Of the second animal of his vision Daniel tells us that it was a male goat coming from the sunset upon the surface of the whole earth, and it was not touching the earth. And as regards the he-goat, there was a conspicuous horn between its eyes. the goat and the ram battle with the ram winning.

As soon as [the goat] became mighty, the great horn was broken, and there proceeded to come up conspicuously four instead of it, toward the four winds of the heavens. The angel explains: "And the hairy he-goat stands for the king of Greece; and as for the great horn that was between its eyes, it stands for the first king. And that one having been broken, so that there were four that finally stood up instead of it, there are four kingdoms from his nation that will stand up, but not with his power."

Medo-Persia would be followed as a world power by Greece, but after Alexander died, in time his empire was divided up four ways among four of his generals, “toward the four winds of the heavens,” as foretold by Daniel over 200 years beforehand. (Daniel 8)

Josephus wrote that this prophecy was shown to Alexander when he came near Jerusalem: “When the book of Daniel was shown to him, in which he [Daniel] had declared that one of the Greeks would destroy the empire of the Persians, he believed himself to be the one indicated; and in his joy he dismissed the multitude for the time being, but on the following day he summoned them again and told them to ask for any gifts which they might desire.” - Antiquities of the Jews, Book XI, chapter VIII, paragraph5.

The prophecy where Cyrus is named as the one who would overthrow Babylon 193 years before (Isaiah 44:26–45:1-2, 7), by diverting the waters of the Euphrates, that the gates would be left open, and that her soldiers wouldn't put up much of a fight. (Isaiah 44:27; 45:1,2; Jeremiah 50:35-38; 51:30-32)

600 years before Christ, Daniel predicted the year the messiah would arrive as 69 weeks of years, or 483 years from the decree to rebuild Jerusalem which would be given in 455 BCE culminating in 29 CE when Jesus was baptized. (Daniel 9:24-27)

[quote]And isn't that sort of telling? When you're only using the the Bible to understand these natural observations, you're left with "no idea".
But don't just throw your hands up and give up.
Using your knowledge of the Bible, give me your best guess at why certain branches of dinosauria have the same features that are unique among all animals only to themselves and birds when birds are ostensibly a different "Kind" that lives in a very different way?[/quote]

I'll say it one more time. The evolution vs creation debate is illogical because;

a) Science investigates the natural, theology investigates the supernatural. Science is primarily observation, theology is primarily analysis.
b) The debate is always biased, ideological and emotional.
c) Biological and theological terms aren't typically defined.
d) Amateurs on either side (who are the ones engaging in the debate) are ignorant of the fundamental principles of the other.
e) Faith and evidence are the same. Faith being defined as complete trust or confidence in someone or something, and evidence being defined as the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. You have to have evidence for the faith and faith in the evidence.

I will allow for our difference of opinion. It doesn't mean anything to me. It doesn't threaten me because I'm not an ideologue.

[quote]Do you think paternity tests are generally reliable or generally unreliable?[/quote]

And again, I don't find anything reliable, not even the Bible, so no.

Pikachu

@BibleData

[quote] My perspective is very simple.[/quote]

With all due respect, yes. Your perspective is very simple.
You've made a decision on what you believe is a distinction without grounding that distinction on anything objective or evidence based. That's not skepticism, that's faith and it's all well and good in its own way but it's not a reliable way of knowing what is true.

I don't want to waste too many words here so let me ask you this: If i present you with evidence for evolution, would you engage with that evidence or would you throw your hands up in admitted ignorance of the science and leave it at "agree to disagree"?

[quote]f all of the characteristics were the same they would be the same[/quote]

I understand your confusion. But let me explain it to you simply. All dogs are mammals because all dogs have all the qualities that make them mammals. They also have additional, specific characteristics that make them dogs.
All humans are apes because all humans have all the qualities that make them apes. They also have additional, specific characteristics that make them humans.
All Chimpanzees are apes because they have all the qualities that make them apes. They also have additional, specific characteristics that make them Chimpanzees.
That's how taxonomy works. If you refuse to learn how a science works then how you can you hope to understand it much less have a thoughtful opinion upon it?

[quote]The boundary between is drawn where fertilization ceases to occur[/quote]

So then a fox and coyote are different kinds but a coyote and a wolf are the same kind and a tiger and a puma are different kinds but a tiger and a lion are the same kind depending on which sex the mother is?
Not a very reliable means of determining "kind" is it?
In fact the idea that the biological species model is a kind is pretty roundly rejected by most mainstream YEC ministries. They tend to put it more or less at the level of Families. Which presents its own problems but far fewer .

[quote]There is no evidence for any new "kinds" ever having been formed since creation.[/quote]

There is an awful lot of evidence. You're just not familiar with it. I can help you with that if you have an earnest interest.

[quote]Perhaps we have different ideas about what prediction are.
[/quote]

lol yes in this case we do.
I'm not talking about "prophecy" that may or may not have been made when it was said to be made or deliberately interpreted in a certain way for politically motivated reasons and is open to so much subjective interpretation that folks have been convinced that the signs of the end times were present since the time of Jesus.
Rather i'm talking about discrete, objective predictions about what will be present in the natural world.
You spoke earlier of what we see in the "real world".
Using creationism as a foundation, making corroborated predictions has so far remained impossible and that is utterly crippling to the idea that creationism is an accurate model of the real world.

BibleData · M

@Pikachu If it is a problem for you that I reject it without the evidence why is it not a problem for you that I accept it without the evidence? Remember what I said about ideologues? And [b]you[/b] are going to question my intellectual honestly while doing what I said you would do? If you haven't given me the evidence then I haven't accepted or rejected the evidence, have I?

What you don't understand is your own confusion. I've made the distinction between and allow for disagreement with science and the Bible which you can't accept and do you have any more information on that subject which [b]you[/b] have rejected in a long series of threads on this forum attacking it? I've more or less told you repeatedly that I don't have a problem with science having it's own theories that differ from any theological position I have myself but that isn't good enough for you, is it? I'm to ask no questions, to just accept it?

That's what you did, isn't it? Your science is dogmatic and you are an ideologue. There isn't anything wrong with that, but it is what's causing your confusion and this exchange would go much smoother if you would acknowledge that.

Pikachu

@BibleData

It seems like you responded to this post before i edited it because i can't remember what i said but evidently i edited out the question of your intellectual honesty because i decided it wasn't fair.
Sorry about that.

[quote] If you haven't given me the evidence then I haven't accepted or rejected the evidence, have I?[/quote]

I think my impression there is a result of your repeated instance that there is no evidence for x when in fact you are simply unfamiliar with the evidence. Maybe i assumed an unjustified rejection of the evidence where i ought not to have.

[quote]I've more or less told you repeatedly that I don't have a problem with science having it's own theories that differ from any theological position I have myself[/quote]

Well yeah, that's not good enough for me lol. But not for any ego-driven basis. I really can't understand that position and perhaps you can explain it for me.
To me there is one objective reality. Either you are right that no organisms can have descendants that are different, that humans haven't evolved from other animals and that evolution as scientifically understood simply did not occur....or you're wrong.
And wouldn't you want to know where you were wrong if you were? Like let's say god created the universe but evolution is part of his creation. Wouldn't you be interested to know that?

The fact is that one of these models is going to better account for the evidence we see in the world, right? There's no way around that.
So to call me an ideologue seems to me unfair. I'm not demanding that you accept my worldview on my say so. I'm offering the chance to see for yourself whether your worldview can accurately describe the world the way mine can.
It's fine if you're not interested in having that discussion.

But that brings me back to the question i'm most interested in at the moment:
[i][b]If i present you with evidence for evolution, would you engage with that evidence or would you throw your hands up in admitted ignorance of the science and leave it at "agree to disagree"?[/b][/i]

BibleData · M

@Pikachu [quote]I think my impression there is a result of your repeated instance that there is no evidence for x when in fact you are simply unfamiliar with the evidence. Maybe i assumed an unjustified rejection of the evidence where i ought not to have.[/quote]

Evolutionists never seem to get that evidence is subjective. Just because you present me with data doesn't mean I accept it as evidence as you would. Not necessarily as science would, nor what the population at large may claim to accept out of fear of looking stupid outside of the groupthink. Nor even what scientists under pressure from the need of grants and publishing might accept. It's the same with Bible believers. Just because God inspired it, or someone may have accepted it when writing it or copying it or scholars, or people only claiming to believe because everyone else did for thousands of years doesn't mean when I present it to you it must therefore be accepted as true. Puts it into perspective, huh?

[quote]Well yeah, that's not good enough for me lol. But not for any ego-driven basis. I really can't understand that position and perhaps you can explain it for me.[/quote]

Sure. Who do you think I'm going to believe - God or science? Theology and science are very different but they are a both the fallible work of men. Biblical scholars may put much weight on tradition or even what science says, but I have found them both to be lacking, even when it comes to the Bible. There are many different translations, denominations, pagan inspired traditions etc. I have to investigate thoroughly the one I and no one else might think is accurate.

[quote]To me there is one objective reality[/quote]

No. And there never has been. Reality is temporal, it evolves as we create it. Science, theology and reality are subjective, fallible and ever evolving. You can't think science is self correcting and uncontentious simultaneously. Peer review becomes meaningless in that case. So, you see science going the way of religion of old. Dogmatic and corruptible. At least the Plandemic woke many up to that.

[quote]To me there is one objective reality. Either you are right that no organisms can have descendants that are different, that humans haven't evolved from other animals and that evolution as scientifically understood simply did not occur....or you're wrong.[/quote]

Correct. What is more difficult for you to realistically comprehend is that you and science may be wrong as well. It's interesting that what I've seen in 30 years of doing this is that believers always have doubt but unbelievers are faithful to science.

[quote]And wouldn't you want to know where you were wrong if you were? Like let's say god created the universe but evolution is part of his creation. Wouldn't you be interested to know that?[/quote]

I would want to know but I would never know for sure and neither will you or anyone else. At least not in this world. Also, from an academic perspective the Bible has always fascinated me. Even if I became an unbeliever I would still be fascinated by it. Science has never been of any interest to me. Even long before I became a believer. Dinosaurs, outer space, digging through old ruins or speculating on how life evolved has never been of any interest to me. That's not a criticism, just a personal preference.

[quote]The fact is that one of these models is going to better account for the evidence we see in the world, right? There's no way around that.[/quote]

No. It's far more likely that we are both wrong, but the list I provided is important. It's apples and oranges. The Bible doesn't go into details on the subject. Even if it did I don't know anything about science. Atheists come at me like if they can win me in a debate I'm not interested or equipped to engage in. I wouldn't have my doctor work on my car or my mechanic work on my health. On top of that my mechanic and my doctor may not know what they're doing either. Science and theology. Imperfect.

[quote]So to call me an ideologue seems to me unfair. [/quote]

An ideologue is an adherent of an ideology, especially one who is uncompromising and dogmatic. You and I? We're ideologues. The degree to which we are dogmatic varies but the process we indulge ourselves in is that of an ideologue. What would be unfair is that if one of us didn't see and acknowledge that.

[quote]I'm offering the chance to see for yourself whether your worldview can accurately describe the world the way mine can.[/quote]

Which would be like be offering you the chance to see for yourself the same of mine. See how silly that is? That's why I don't believe you on that point. I think maybe you believe it but if you gave it some more thought you would see how silly and pointless it is. What you really want is to validate your worldview. It's just confirmation bias.

[quote]It's fine if you're not interested in having that discussion.[/quote]

I'm interested in having an exchange of ideas without it being unrealistic or unfair. Keeping in mind that . . . .

a) Science investigates the natural, theology investigates the supernatural. Science is primarily observation, theology is primarily analysis.
b) The debate is always biased, ideological and emotional.
c) Biological and theological terms aren't typically defined.
d) Amateurs on either side (who are the ones engaging in the debate) are ignorant of the fundamental principles of the other.
e) Faith and evidence are the same. Faith being defined as complete trust or confidence in someone or something, and evidence being defined as the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. You have to have evidence for the faith and faith in the evidence.

You don't, in my opinion, which is why you become impatient when I question the evidence.

[quote]But that brings me back to the question i'm most interested in at the moment:
If i present you with evidence for evolution, would you engage with that evidence or would you throw your hands up in admitted ignorance of the science and leave it at "agree to disagree"?[/quote]

What do you think? Like I said: when I discuss the Bible I don't want the people I'm addressing to accept but rather be informed knowing full well that I could be wrong.

Pikachu

@BibleData

[quote]Evolutionists never seem to get that evidence is subjective. Just because you present me with data doesn't mean I accept it as evidence as you would[/quote]

Actually i agree with you there. And it's not that i expect you to accept the evidence that i present for evolution.
I expect you to be able to better account for that evidence using creationism or, failing that, to be able to argue reasonable grounds upon which the evidence presented for evolution is insufficient to support the case.
I understand that people often feel threatened when challenged to thoughtfully dispute something with which they disagree or support that which they assume to be true.

[quote]There are many different translations, denominations, pagan inspired traditions etc. I have to investigate thoroughly the one I and on one else think is accurate.
[/quote]

So why are you asking me if you trust god or science? You know that scripture as recorded by man is not necessarily the pristine word of god.
lol i'm literally asking you to investigate thoroughly the matter at hand.

[quote]Reality is fluid, it evolves as we create it[/quote]

Jump off a building in full belief that you won't fall and then tell me how fluid reality is.
No one actually believes that when forced to put it in practical terms.
But maybe you can give me an example of what you think is subjective reality.

[quote]What is more difficult for you to realistically comprehend is that you and science may be wrong as well[/quote]

I think you're falling into the same mistake i did earlier.
You are assuming that i cannot comprehend that science and my conclusions based thereon can be wrong when you have given me no reason to doubt them.

[quote] It's far more likely that we are both wrong, [/quote]

No. That's a coward's way out.
Neither of our worldviews must be totally accurate (it would be shocking if they were) for one or the other to [i]better[/i] account for and predict for what will be found in the world around us.
It can be faith based or it can be based in science but one of them will more accurately model the real world.
There's no way around that.

[quote]It's just confirmation bias.
[/quote]

Confirmation bias is accepting that which conforms to your worldview and denying that which disconfirms it.
I'm not asking you to confirm my worldview, i'm challenging you to dispute it.
Am i mistaken or are you consistently backing away from actually making your case in specific, evidential terms?

[quote]What do you think?[/quote]

I think i'd appreciate it if you gave me a straight answer to a straight question.
I'd like to actually make a case for my worldview using evidence.
If you feel you can meet me in that arena then i'd like to begin.
If you feel that is not within our ability or interest then i'd like to know that too.

So one final time:
[b][i]If i present you with evidence for evolution, would you engage with that evidence or would you throw your hands up in admitted ignorance of the science and leave it at "agree to disagree"?[/i][/b]

BibleData · M

@Pikachu [quote]I expect you to be able to better account for that evidence using creationism or, failing that, to be able to argue reasonable grounds upon which the evidence presented for evolution is insufficient to support the case.[/quote]

Why? I'm not a scientist.

[quote]So why are you asking me if you trust god or science? [/quote]

Was I? I don't think so. I trust Jehovah. I don't trust science, theology, religion or mankind in general. Including myself.

[quote]You know that scripture as recorded by man is not necessarily the pristine word of god.[/quote]

Correct. The Bible and it's translations are fallible.

[quote]lol i'm literally asking you to investigate thoroughly the matter at hand.[/quote]

And you understand that your beliefs may be as wrong to me as mine are to you? Or do you think science is somehow superior? Keeping mind, apples and oranges.

[quote]Jump off a building in full belief that you won't fall and then tell me how fluid reality is.
No one actually believes that when forced to put it in practical terms.
But maybe you can give me an example of what you think is subjective reality.[/quote]

You make too many assumptions for reality to be completely objective. Your example, for starters. Maybe the building is only one story, in which case I can tell you I've jumped it. Or maybe I have a parachute or one of those cool gliding outfits, or a stunt bag waiting at the bottom, a jet pack or maybe there's a portion of the building out of your sight which is only a few feet down.

Subjective reality is a variation in our realities. Time, geography, culture, development etc.

[quote]You are assuming that i cannot comprehend that science and my conclusions based thereon can be wrong when you have given me no reason to doubt them.[/quote]

You have no reason to doubt them? If that is really so it's merely irrational overconfidence.

[quote]I'm not asking you to confirm my worldview, i'm challenging you to dispute it.[/quote]

And I keep trying to explain to you that I am no more qualified to dispute yours than you are mine.

Pikachu

@BibleData

lol ok. So for whatever reason you really don't want to answer that question head on but i think the answer is fairly obvious anyway.
You're no scientist as you say. Which is fine. Neither am i...but it seems to me that you're using that as a preemptive defense against having to be exposed to and reconcile evidence for evolution which conflicts with your worldview.

[quote]You have no reason to doubt them? If that is really so it's merely irrational overconfidence.
[/quote]

Do you feel you have, in our interaction here given me reason to doubt the evidence that evolution has occurred?
I am confident that the evidence shows descent with modification and common ancestry. There's nothing irrational about following evidence. It's just that evolution is so well supported that while new evidence could potentially overturn it the likelihood is similar to discovering that actually the sun orbits the Earth.
This isn't irrational overconfidence...it's just regular confidence lol

[quote]. Or maybe I have a parachute or one of those cool gliding outfits[/quote]

We're both still living in the same reality where you either have a parachute or you do not.
That's not subjective reality. It's just knowing what is true about the world around you. You can be wrong about the world around you but reality remains objective.
So yeah, either evolution has happened or it has not.

Remember what the subject of this thread is? Show me evidence that you feel demonstrates that evolution did not or could not happen.
So if you tell me apples only produce apples and i try to explain populations or get you to explain the mechanism by which you think life stops diversifying or why DNA shows relatedness in one instance but not another.... and you only respond with "I'm not a scientist" then can you really say that you've answered the challenge set out in the original question?

[quote]And I keep trying to explain to you that I am no more qualified to dispute yours than you are mine.
[/quote]

Then, my dude...[i]what in god's name are you doing in this thread?[/i] lol