@SatyrService Well, promoting discussion is a futile exercise generally speaking and there is very little being posted as far as alternative to the failed metaphysical experiment of the so called evolutionary theory so that's a tough one. I would say that what I generally do is post the latter just so people have the opportunity to hear an alternative to your ideological fixation but I also interject in other threads when I think correction is warranted.
Aren't those one and the same? Creationism falls flat when it attempts to compete with evolution.
Evolution provides a single, consistent answer that retains explanatory power while creationism falls back on a series of just-so stories. Evolution flourishes on a synthesis of data from multiple fields of science while creationism struggles to find a rescue device for why each field undermines its ideology. Evolution predicts new discoveries while creationism can only do gymnastics to accommodate them.
But let's not get sidetracked. What questions do you have for me about evolution?
Aren't those one and the same? Creationism falls flat when it attempts to compete with evolution.
Really? By what standard? Creationism falls flat when it attempts to explain the Bible. Evolutionism falls flat when it attempts to compete with the Bible. More people believe in creation than evolution and half of those believing in evolution believe it had divine direction. Conclusion: Creationism, even though Biblically and scientifically inaccurate wins the competition. It's about ideology. Not science.
But let's not get sidetracked.
Right.
What questions do you have for me about evolution?
What are the origin of the basic features of living cells and the origin of human consciousness?
By the standard of explanatory power of the real world. Well we can certainly agree that Creationism only competes in an ideological arena and not in a scientific one lol
What are the origin of the basic features of living cells and the origin of human consciousness?
Oh that's way beyond my layman's understanding. The former being far too specialized knowledge and the latter ( i think) being largely unanswered except that consciousness appears to be an emergent property of the brain resulting from the ability to process all sorts of sensory inputs and maintain them in one coherent model of the world surrounding the organism.
But let me ask you this: does now knowing how life ultimately began dispute the evidence that it has since evolved? Do unanswered questions allow us to reject the answers we do have?
By the standard of explanatory power of the real world.
No. There's no such thing.
Well we can certainly agree that Creationism only competes in an ideological arena and not in a scientific one lol
And by deduction, that Evolutionism is in the same arena lol
But let me ask you this: does now knowing how life ultimately began dispute the evidence that it has since evolved?
Now knowing? We don't, but if life originated pretty much as it is today it needn't have evolved much. Things change but they don't change into other things. That's what the evidence suggests. Anything else is primitive philosophy and eugenics in the guise of academia and intellectualism.
Do unanswered questions allow us to reject the answers we do have?
Only when we give answers we shouldn't feel confident in giving as indisputable truth. I was more impressed with your acknowledgement of uncertainty than your usual overconfidence. Interestingly, I think your overconfidence is due more to theological ignorance. Irony?
Scientific theories are a lot more than "speculation." Scientific theories must make testable predictions and/or explanations; otherwise they are not in the realm of science. And to be accepted, they must make better predictions and/or explanations than alternate theories.
Why don't I admit what you mentioned? I will admit a whole heck of a lot more! There is no such thing as proof positive in science. You can disprove a theory with counter evidence but no accumulation of positive evidence constitutes proof positive.
Let's take Newton's law of gravity. Sure, it predicts eclipses years in advance with better than a part per billion accuracy. Does that amount to a proof? No way! In fact, Newton's law makes wrong predictions about the precession of Mercury's orbit while Einstein's general relativity explains Mercury accurately. (Side note: we still use Newton's laws because they predict accurately enough for many situations; you just need to know when to step up to Einstein.)
If certainty is what you crave, then stay away from science. Science requires an attitude of skepticism towards all theories and all data. Science is always waiting for the next improved theory to supplant the existing pretty good theory, or the next startling observation to falsify the existing theory.
Where evolution enters the picture is evolution is the best explanation for the DNA record and the fossil record. Evolution has not yet explained everything, but it engenders the least skepticism. I could go on a lot further in this vein, but you've demonstrated a refusal to read my long pieces.
Scientific theories are a lot more than "speculation." Scientific theories must make testable predictions and/or explanations; otherwise they are not in the realm of science. And to be accepted, they must make better predictions and/or explanations than alternate theories.
I disagree. We live in a reality. Some things about that reality are true and others are not. There is a model of this world we live in that comports more closely to the authentic world than another model. Evolution comports to the real world more authentically than does creationism. Simple as that.
And by deduction, that Evolutionism is in the same arena lol
Evolutionism? Sure, if you like. The theory of evolution? No. Evolution theory is observable, explanatory and has made verified predictions. Creationism denies discoveries until it can deny them no more and then does mental gymnastics to accommodate them after all. Sorry, but this was a dressed up version of "I know you are but what am iii?" and you're better than that.
That's what the evidence suggests
Ah good lad! We're finally getting to something that can actually be discussed in concrete terms. So you assert that the evidence suggests that there has not been dramatic change between organisms over time. Let's dispense with the clutter of buzzwords and the petty posturing. You believe that the body of evidence indicates that life can only evolve x amount and has not evolved further.
So i'll ask you two simple questions to begin:
1) What mechanism do you identify that allows life to change successively over generations but to only change x amount and no further?
2) What do you consider to be the best evidence that "Things change but they don't change into other things"?
I disagree. We live in a reality. Some things about that reality are true and others are not.
We live in a reality that "we" created over a long period. Recorded history is full of lies and beyond that is purely speculative.
There is a model of this world we live in that comports more closely to the authentic world than another model.
That's your opinion. There are other opinions.
Evolution comports to the real world more authentically than does creationism. Simple as that.
No. Not simple as that. That model is always correcting its errors. That means whatever you think reality is right now will evolve into something else tomorrow just as the "scientific" reality I was taught in my youth has done. The fact is you know creationism from a sociopolitical group of people who have taken pagan philosophy, mostly Greek philosophy which also originated the evolutionary theory and misrepresent their source for social and political reasons. They aren't competent to represent an accurate interpretation of creation.
Evolutionism? Sure, if you like.
I do, because Evolutionism, or scientism if you like, are only the other side of the coin. You are the same as the Creationists the same as the Democrats are the same as the Republicans. They both sold out and misrepresented for sociopolitical means, not science.
So you assert that the evidence suggests that there has not been dramatic change between organisms over time.
No, I didn't. I said things don't change into other things. You can disguise one to imply the other but that's dishonest.
Let's dispense with the clutter of buzzwords and the petty posturing.
I get it. You like, from time to time, to talk about your hobby. Evolutionary theory. I'm not really interested in your polemic pontification until it presents a conflict with my interest the Bible. You don't want to talk about your hobby with others who share an equal interest, you want to talk about it with people like me, but you don't want to talk about the creation account of the Bible. I don't care about your science hobby. Like you don't care about mine. You see? Conversation is a two way street. I'm not signing up for your classroom the same as I'm not going to church. I consider them the same. I'm not interested in a sermon. You aren't a scientist and neither am I so is this really about science? No.
You believe that the body of evidence indicates that life can only evolve x amount and has not evolved further.
No. I believe something much more simple than that. What I observe. Creation. Apple trees make apples, lizards make lizards and birds make birds. Never seen any indication whatsoever of anything else. Are you saying there is some other observable phenomenon? That's when I have to disagree.
1) What mechanism do you identify that allows life to change successively over generations but to only change x amount and no further?
I don't care about mechanisms. Things don't change into other things. A reptile doesn't change into a bird. Period. If your mechanism is the delusion you need to believe that, have at it. Enjoy. I don't buy it.
2) What do you consider to be the best evidence that "Things change but they don't change into other things"?
I don't. I don't have to consider it. It's a general application.
@Pikachu I have some questions. Where DID we leave off? Why do people hide their comments? Seems kind of counter productive, and why are you so eager to proselytize for evolution?
I said no one has ever observed a bird changing into something else. Ever. No evidence.
There is indeed evidence genetic, morphological, behavioral, ontogenetic and fossil of the relationship between reptiles and birds but we'll come to that later if you feel confident that you can refute it.
For now let's keep a focus on the logical validity of your objection.
It is an observed, tested, peer-reviewed fact that animals change physically and behaviorally over successive generations and that these changes compound. What mechanism do you identify that halts that compounding change at a certain point? Can you give an example of an organism which we know has changed over time but which we have demonstrated can change no more?
If you cannot do either of these things then you have no logical foundation for your objection and certainly no justification for declaring as impossible a process simply because you personally are ignorant of the evidence for it. And indeed, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", as they say. So even if it were so (and it is not) that there is no evidence of birds developing from reptiles, not having seen evidence of this derivation would not preclude its possibility given the observable mechanisms by which such a change could take place. Again, i you seem not to be understanding how important it is for you to be able to explain why life can change x amount and no further.
You'll notice i ignored the deflections and red-herrings. Let's not waste time with those moving forward.
P.s. your comment shows up as hidden to. So i don't know why it's doing that.
There is indeed evidence genetic, morphological, behavioral, ontogenetic and fossil of the relationship between reptiles and birds but we'll come to that later if you feel confident that you can refute it.
That there is evidence means absolutely nothing. Evidence only means there is something you attribute as possibly supporting or not supporting something. Science says there is evidence of evolution is like religion saying the same exact thing is evidence of creation. Not only that but you can interpret anything as evidence. If, as I once saw, an ichthyologist goes to the Amazon during flooding season to learn from the people who live and fish there, sees a fish swimming in the now then flooded forest where tree nuts are hanging just above the water and a fish leaps out of the water to knock the nut down into the water with a knot on top of his head the ichthyologist says the fish evolved the knot in order to do so. Now that doesn't conflict in any way with my Biblical understanding of creation. Biblical kinds. It may very well be true. But it also may very well be that the knot was created there for that reason, or it just happened to work out it had it there all along and took advantage of it. No one knows. He only says evolution either because he believes in evolution or he wants to get funding for his study and if he didn't say evolution it is far less likely he would. You see? Evidence doesn't mean anything.
It's like the primitive superstitious people who lived and fished there for centuries may have made up some story in which the fish was given a knot by a supernatural being of some kind. Both stories, the scientists and the fishermen, were made up and then used as "evidence" for the same thing.
It is an observed, tested, peer-reviewed fact that animals change physically and behaviorally over successive generations and that these changes compound.
Okay. So what? Fruit flies. Mutations. How many generations lead to positive and how many to negative? Doesn't matter right? Mostly harmful. When do the flies turn into something else. Not change into a different looking fruit fly. Not change into some other kind of fly that can produce offspring with a fruit fly. Not actually not change at all but just thrive better given their surroundings like the case of the pepper moth. I am only concerned of change from one thing to another.
The difficulty we have in identifying that sort of thing is substantial in that just because we label a thing as "ape" or "human" doesn't mean anything that will reflect upon its categorization into what we can establish is a Biblical kind. So, you say a human is an ape? Okay, can they produce fertile offspring? Because if they can't what's the point in attributing evolution? Positive or negative? Like the fruit fly mentioned above that isn't the point. The point is did they change from something else? Do they have a common ancestor? Well, if they do and they are fertile - capable of producing offspring, then they fall into the category of the Biblical kind. It doesn't matter whether or not science calls them "ape" or "monkey."
What mechanism do you identify that halts that compounding change at a certain point?
So, you show me the "evidence" of a "bird" fucking a "lizard" and something else being produced that isn't a "bird" and isn't a "lizard" you've got evidence of evolution that will impress me. But then maybe not. Maybe a "bird" is a "lizard." I can say a human and a bonobo are not Biblical kinds. They can't produce fertile offspring. Why can't they? What's the "mechanism?"
I don't know. I don't care. It doesn't matter to me. I don't need to know the "mechanism" because I still know it ain't gonna happen or if it does you got yerself a gotdamn Biblical kind, partner.
I'm not the scientist. It's your job to make up a "mechanism." If you want your funding I would make up a story that uses the word "evolution" but if you don't want funding make up the story to use the word "creation." When all is said and done it doesn't matter because that Bonobo isn't going to have grandchildren that works on Wall Street as an investment banker and does lots of cocaine.
They probably could, intellectually, ethically, morally, physically, but they wont.
Can you give an example of an organism which we know has changed over time but which we have demonstrated can change no more?
Can you give me an example of one who can guide clients through stock trading, mergers and acquisitions and initial public offerings, identify and minimize risks while maximizing clients' finances - and earn high fees for the acquisition of large quantities of Colombian Snow, all while in their spare time engaging in public nudity and flinging feces at the Central Park Zoo?!
Good Lord, man! You can?! I'm warning you though, mister . . . if you can't tell the difference that may get you some funding in science but it ain't gonna' git you far in real life.
[media=https://youtu.be/IG51okII1Fc]
Red herring?
Poor guy. . . . he just wants a real debate on his Scientism. Surely there's someone out there that can do that?! If not just a Bonobo to play the Devil's advocate?
Edit to add: I'm giving you a hard time making fun of it not due to the subject but your school marm approach. These, to me, are valid concerns. Does it matter to me whether or not "science" can explain them? I don't think so, but you aren't likely, I think, to address them using your approach.
Evidence only means there is something you attribute as possibly supporting or not supporting something. Science says there is evidence of evolution is like religion saying the same exact thing is evidence of creation
Correct, evidence must be interpreted. It is the strength ability to eliminate spurious variables and the power of prediction which leads us to the correct interpretation of the evidence. That's why religion is religion and science is science. Religion begins with conclusions and does backflips to incorporate new data. Science looks and the evidence and asks questions about what we can expect to find if hypothesis x is true.
That's why we use science to build jet engines, cure diseases and model the universe and not religion lol.
Okay. So what?
So .... we observe that changes compound over time and you don't have a logical basis to make the claim that only x amount of changes can compound. Or at least you have yet to present one.
You still don't seem to understand how significantly this undermines the foundation of your objection.
If we know this is how the process works. and there is no contention that it does work.... what testable, observed, peer-reviewed mechanism do you identify which necessarily limits the extent of this process?
I don't know. I don't care. It doesn't matter to me. I don't need to know the "mechanism" because I still know it ain't gonna happen
Nope. You believe that such a change can't happen. You have faith. And if you really don't care then you simply must stop entering these threads lol
It's your job to make up a "mechanism."
Nope. It's not my job to make your argument for you. If you assert that there is a good reason that an organism can only undergo x amount of change an no more then it is on you to support that assertion. You keep dancing around that fact but i simply won't indulge you any more unless you a) identify what you feel to be a suitable, testable, overserved, peer-reviewed mechanism or b) acknowledge that you cannot logically explain why the process of descent with modification must halt at a certain point.
So, you show me the "evidence"
I'll be happy to. Once you clear this first hurdle.
Correct, evidence must be interpreted. It is the strength ability to eliminate spurious variables and the power of prediction which leads us to the correct interpretation of the evidence.
Theoretically, yes. If the scientists aren't corrupted with financial incentive like patent enticements, government funding, pressured by peers and the established narrative isn't distorted like advertising and publishing in scientific journals, and the science isn't politicized or distorted in the media, yes. Sadly, that distortion is the norm now. The biggest threat to science right now is conflict of interest. Of course, we're talking about evolution which isn't science at all, it's politicized eugenics and social control. Also big business subjected by all of the above due to it's unique position for funding advantages through that politicization.
Then, if the scientist could navigate all of that, and were really interested in the correct evaluation and interpretation of evidence (not possible in evolution) and get the funding in a field of science the media isn't interested in politically or financially exploiting, they might be able to get to the correct interpretation. Due to politicization and conflict of interest that isn't going to happen in the pharmaceutical, evolutionary or climate science arena.
That's why religion is religion and science is science.
A rose by any other name.
Religion begins with conclusions and does backflips to incorporate new data.
Religion and science doesn't do that. People do. In religion and science. They take advantage of the ignorant through ideology for financial and/or political gain.
Science looks and the evidence and asks questions about what we can expect to find if hypothesis x is true.
And then presume it is until something more lucrative comes around or it becomes apparent the conclusion was faulty.
That's why we use science to build jet engines, cure diseases and model the universe and not religion lol.
Lol. No. You're confusing science with technology. A common ideological mistake. First of all, religion invented science. Nearly all of the scientific advancements have been made by religious people from it's inception. Secondly, science ideologues often take the credit for technology after they have objected to it. Ignaz Semmelweis antiseptic procedures and the Wright brother's mechanical flight, for example.
So .... we observe that changes compound over time and you don't have a logical basis to make the claim that only x amount of changes can compound. Or at least you have yet to present one.
So, I suggested repeatedly during our discussions that the Biblical kind is what we observe in it's most basic sense as I understand it. I pointed out that the scientific biological classification of species isn't the same, perhaps causing you some confusion? The two of us not being scientists we can't remedy that, and so what benefit from the actual theological and biological rather than our ideological conflict is such a remedy?
You and I and others wishing to participate could come together in the hopes of coming to some better understanding - I would like that, but don't think it possible because for the ideologically fixated "science" minded fundamentalist militant atheistic thinking person the real point in evolution is to call into question the alleged theological dispute and debunk religion without actually having to examine the Biblical creation account at all.
And that's fine, but it's also why my discussions with those types of people - are pointless.
You still don't seem to understand how significantly this undermines the foundation of your objection.
So, without shoving your ideological fixation down my throat how could you possibly help me with that? (see above)
If we know this is how the process works. and there is no contention that it does work.... what testable, observed, peer-reviewed mechanism do you identify which necessarily limits the extent of this process?
Show me evolution. Specifically evolution that allegedly refutes what we observe, the Biblical kinds. Otherwise you're just blowing smoke up my ass and wasting my time. First define it, then show me evolution and THEN you can explain how you have come to understand it might work.
[media=https://youtu.be/0Wwwa-kapmc]
Nope. You believe that such a change can't happen. You have faith. And if you really don't care then you simply must stop entering these threads lol
This is where the hypocritical thinking and ignorance of a narcissitic personality of the ideologue, in this case, using science, is revealed.
I have knowledge through observation and experience that the Biblical kind reported in the Genesis creation account is accurate. I don't have to have faith in that. What I do have faith in is that it was by intelligent design. What you have, without observation and experience, is faith in the theoretical alternative to that observable reality through sociopolitical propaganda, financial incentive and corrupted "scientific" consensus. Groupthink.
I have faith that you can't demonstrate Darwinian evolution which refutes the accurate Biblical account. Simple Biblical kinds. You have faith that you can. The ball is in your court.
Nope. It's not my job to make your argument for you.
I don't trust you, that is have faith in, your ability to consider my argument, let alone make it. The truth is you appear to want me to make your argument for you because you know I'm not equipped to do that without adhering to the pretense. In order for me to be able to appear to make your argument I wouldn't have to believe in the argument, I would only have to present it as plausible and I can't see any plausibility there. You have to show me. Then you have an argument.
If you assert that there is a good reason that an organism can only undergo x amount of change an no more then it is on you to support that assertion.
An argument could suppose the theoretical possibility for the distant past or the distant future regarding such a change, but no such thing has ever been observed or recorded. Like mermaids and leprechauns. That's why you only explain and never demonstrate. You read it in a book, you think it's true, everyone else agrees. Like medieval superstition with a modern twist.
You keep dancing around that fact but i simply won't indulge you any more unless you a) identify what you feel to be a suitable, testable, overserved, peer-reviewed mechanism or b) acknowledge that you cannot logically explain why the process of descent with modification must halt at a certain point.
a) The Biblical kinds presented in the Bible is the only suitable, testable, peer reviewed explanation of life on this planet. Period. Evolution is a failed metaphysical experiment.
b) YOU must acknowledge that you cannot logically explain ANY alternative. Period. The only thing you can do, in your teaching of evolution is regurgitate the alleged mechanics of that failed experiment.
In this thread where you deceptively ask the reader to ask questions you're not equipped to answer you have nothing more than eugenics in the guise of an ideological theory.
I'll be happy to. Once you clear this first hurdle.
When I see someone evolve into a dolphin I'll send them around to entertain your narcissitic behavior by jumping through your hoops.
No. You're confusing science with technology. A common ideological mistake.
How are the principles behind technology discovered and their implementation optimized ? The scientific method. Boom.
if the scientist could navigate all of that, and were really interested in the correct evaluation and interpretation of evidence (not possible in evolution)
So...you cite corruption and conspiracy in order to dismiss the explanation for why evolution is so universally accepted scientifically. Congratulations: you're now playing the same game as flat earthers. That should give you pause...
You think that scientists should be interested in the correct interpretation of evidence meaning they should not begin with a conclusion and interpret the evidence to suit that conclusion....and then say that under no circumstances can evolution be supported by the evidence....hmm does that not strike you as a little hypocritical?
you appear to want me to make your argument for you
lol no! No, no, no! I want you to make you're own argument for how life can change over successive generations through descent with modification but can only change to a certain point. I'm not trying to get you to jump through hoops, i'm trying to see if you have a basic level of intellectual honesty.
Doesn't matter. In your repeated refusal to meet that challenge you have telegraphed that no, you don't have even a proposed mechanism by which descent with modification would be limited. Good enough, i suppose.
And that's the last i'll talk about ideological bullshit. From now on we'll confine ourselves to what the evidence actually is and the arguments directly associated with its proper interpretation. You may have a final word on that if you like.
Time to define terms:
evolution that allegedly refutes what we observe, the Biblical kinds.
1) Define a biblical "kind" for me. 2) Tell me how one reliably and consistently concludes whether or not two animals belong to the same "kind" .
Show me evolution.
1) In your own words (ideally without googling it) how is evolution meant to work? How does a bird evolve from a dinosaur? 2) What would be a hypothetical example of evidence which would suggest this process had occurred?
evolution that allegedly refutes what we observe, the Biblical kinds.
1) Define a biblical "kind" for me. 2) Tell me how one reliably and consistently concludes whether or not two animals belong to the same "kind" .
Show me evolution.
a) In your own words (ideally without googling it) how is evolution meant to work? How does a bird evolve from a dinosaur? b) What would be a hypothetical example of evidence which would suggest this process had occurred?
And that's the last i'll talk about ideological bullshit.
Good. I've already defined Biblical kinds several times. All you have to do is show me evidence of there ever being something that refutes the Bible on the subject of creation. The Biblical creation account.
All you have to do is show me evidence of there ever being something that refutes the Bible on the subject of creation
In order for me to do that we must define and agree upon terms.
If you feel you have defined a biblical "kind" already then that will be a simple mater of copy and pasting for 1) and then you can answer 2) as well as a) and b)
We really can't hope to get anywhere if we don't agree on the definitions and parameters of the terms we're discussing. I hope that doesn't count as making you jump through hoops. I just see no other alternative.
@Pikachu I was never so foolish to think that we were going to get anywhere and I don't think you were either.
I think you're going in the wrong direction. You seem to want me to have a scientific debate with you, which I've told you I'm not interested in. Science doesn't interest me unless it or its ideology creates a conflict with the Bible.
So, does evolution do that and if so, explain. Just show me an example of something evolving beyond what the Biblical creation account would allow. Because I don't have a problem with things evolving. That we observe. If you don't know what the creation account actually says and means - not what so-called "Creationists" say, but what it says - then you have no basis for disagreement.
Why are you so hesitant to make clear the definition of the terms you use and your understanding of the topic? It's baffling...
I'm happy to do what you ask. I just need to know where you're starting from so i know how to deliver the information in a format that is useful and comprehensible to you.
So please: Show me a little courtesy. If you're interested in continuing this interaction just answer those for simple questions so that we're starting on the same page.
