DavisBJ said:
As to evolution itself, 6days has a pretty strong antipathy towards it that dictates that he not dignify it as simply science.
A couple days back, I mentioned that evolutionists like to use terms such as 'vestigial' that can mean almost anything. You do it again with the word 'evolution'...essentially the fallacy of equivocation.
*If by the word 'evolution' you are referring to operational / observable science (adaptation, change in gene pool, mutations, selection etc), then that is something I embrace....opposite of antipathy.*
* if by the word 'evolution' you are talking about common ancestry beliefs...then yes I reject that, as it opposes the absolute truth of God's Word. (And the evidence doesn't support it)
DavisBJ said:
(evolution) is a vibrant active field of study today. If it were not, we would never have to develop new strains of flu vaccines each year.
Nonsense... (and fallacy of equivocation).
Vaccines are developed by scientists using observational operational science. Common ancestry beliefs contribute nothing to the advancement of medicine.*
BTW... vaccinations were developed before the time of Darwin and without any belief in common ancestry.
DavisBJ said:
In fact, I would really like 6day to explain how, in the absence of common descent, evolution could be used to explain vestigiality.
You are using words with fudge factors that can mean almost anything. Are you asking how an organ might have diminished function?*
DavisBJ said:
I will simply point out that the quote I provided was in the form of a declarative – “analyses indicate” *(Cladistic analyses)*– not a hypothetical like 6days offers - “analyses can also”.
Cladistics was developed by evolutionists to suggest the most probable evolutionary relationships. We could call it a 'begging the question' branch of evolutionism. We could also use homology and*nested hierarchies of biological features and make "declarative" statements in support of created kinds.*
DavisBJ said:
6days said:
Science increasingly makes belief in common ancestry more and more to be just psuedoscience.
6days, you make the claim. Now, can you back it?
Sure.... For example evolutionists once thought that humanity had various races of people, and some were more highly evolved than others. (Google scientific racism / psuedoscience)*
Science has shown we are all 'one blood'.*
*Also...what is psuedoscience...
1. Pseudoscientific theories explain what non-believers cannot even observe.*(like common ancestry and abiogenesis)
2. Pseudoscientific theories are supported mainly by selective use of anecdotes, intuition, and examples of confirming instances.(as with common ancestry)
3.*pseudoscientific theories confuse metaphysical claims with empirical claims.(like with Cladistic analyses)
4.*pseudoscientific theories … contradict known scientific laws and use*ad hoc*hypotheses to explain their belief. (As with expansion and other stellar evolution beliefs)*
5.pseudoscientific theories5. *so vague and malleable that anything relevant can be shoehorned to fit the theory. (As with vestigial organs)
DavisBJ said:
6days said:
You say the appendix evolved twice.... Well this article stretches the limits of credulity saying it evolved at least 32 times.
http://news.sciencemag.org/plants-an...-more-30-times
You make cherry-picking into an art form. You liked the article you gave me where it spoke about the appendix not being vestigial, but when it is pointed out to you that the same study concludes the appendix evolved twice, you run to a completely different part of the cherry orchard to see if you can find something disconfirming
Actually... all I did was quote the headline showing that there is disagreement between evolutionists what vestigial is.*
It was you who used the article to say the appendix evolved twice. I showed how that too is a belief contradicted by other evolutionists who say the appendix evolved 32 times.*
DavisBJ said:
If you are willing to pretend to respect science enough to honestly evaluate ideas that are not in agreement with what you currently believe, then:
1) Assume evolution is true (just as a basis for seeing if it is logical) - would it be expected that life forms with a close evolutionary connection would have some (or even many) similar organs?
2) Assume evolution is true (just as a basis for seeing if it is logical) - would it be expected that, in life forms with a close evolutionary connection, organs which were essential to the early forms, but serve a minor role in later forms might atrophy?
Davis....NO, NO, NO....
You are promoting a belief system... NOT science.
I can also say... "Assume God's Word is true (just as a basis for seeing if it is logical) - would it be expected that life forms with similar homology have similar DNA sequences? And similar function from similar organs?*
DavisBJ said:
6days said:
*Common ancestry beliefs attempt to shoehorn interpretations to fit the data.
You rely on this cheap canard so often that I am not going to keep wasting my time on it.
In other words .... you know of many examples of evolutionary shoehorning and don't want to discuss it further? *I'm sure you could list ten examples in 10 seconds quite easily.*
DavisBJ said:
...But the confusing part to me is that at the beginning of your post, and many others, you claim that “Science supports the truth of God's Word.” If that is true, then you should implicitly view scientists as friendly witnesses, not adversarial.
SCIENCE (archaeology, genetics, biology, geology etc) *supports the truth of God's Word.*
Some scientists agree with that, many don't.*
DavisBJ said:
*It appears that in what was probably an unguarded moment of truthfulness, you describe the science that says the appendix is not vestigial as coming from adversaries. And further, once a witness is called to testify, it becomes the prerogative of the opposing counsel to cross-examine the witness. Only when I, who without pretense views those scientists as friendly, brought out that their expertise led to conclusions you disfavor, did you resort to trying to discredit that portion of their testimony. We have seen enough cherry picking here for a cherry pie.
Councillor, could I have some ice cream with that?
Yes.... guilty...sort of
But, with any hostile witness you only illicit statements that contradict the prosecutions theory. These statements are generally more powerful than statements from friendly family.
The hostile witness said the appendix was vestigial no more. The fact that the hostile witness still believes the appendix evolved is immaterial to the case.
Your witness....
DavisBJ said:
More than that, I have seen many novel ideas in numerous branches of science that were hotly disputed by scientists for many years. That is part of the beauty of science – once a scientific idea finally emerges victorious, it wears the battle scars of merciless attacks from backers of the now-defeated ideas. It has been subjected to intensive examination, and only then is it awarded the status of a scientific theory.
Exhibit A... Galileo.*
Agree.
DavisBJ said:
I can’t help but contrast that with the way I have always been told religion is validated – by faith. Not by impartial evidence, not by a comprehensive in-depth comparison with competing religious doctrines, but by reading and praying and listening for the confirming answer to those prayers.
Well, it might surprise you that I largely agree with you.*
Example would be the fellow who tells you that he prayed for a parking spot (or whatever request) .. and the parking spot was empty exactly where he wanted!! But he neglected to tell you it was on his 4th time around the block. Confession...I think I might be guilty of that kind of self confirming beliefs / explanations sometimes too.*
However.... as Christians we are to try sort out what is real. God's Word tells us faith without evidence is dead. His Word tells us to try every spirit. *IOW. ..Don't blindly believe. His Word is supported by the internal evidences of Divine inspiration ...the external evidences of archaeology, history and science.
