Creation vs. Evolution

[Derf]

Your bias is showing I just said that none of it is special, obviously you'd very much like to believe otherwise. Care to share your rationale?

We've been talking about evidence, science, and truth (potentially all synonyms of each other). "More special" is my way of suggesting that one is more truthful than another in terms of evidence. I haven't read too many holy books, but of the ones I've read, the Bible is far superior in terms of content and intent. Even the dreaded genealogies (dreaded if you have to read them in your daily bible reading, that is) are stated as fact, nothing more.

Unfortunately no. Think of it this way, a mathematical proof of a theorem requires all the steps to be valid. Having even 99.9% of the document seem credible does not support the credibility of the remainder at all. You have to validate EVERYTHING.

I dare say you don't treat science with the same kind of scrutiny. Do you really validate EVERYTHING you read or hear about that comes with the "science" label? Remember that it's not enough just to have peer-reviewed journals and institutions that make proclamations--religious groups have those, too! And unless you're an expert at every branch of science, you eventually will have to "take their word for it" when they tell you something is true.

As I've said before, inferring the supernatural from some historical accounts is a huge leap of faith (or logical fallacy, if you will).

So at least you recognize the history benefit? Excellent! then there is still hope for you. Oh, wait, that's what you said about me.

Excellent! then there is still hope for you.
Let's try to get things straight.

Fact - a piece of information presented as having objective reality or an actual occurrence

So as long as I just present something to you as having objective reality, or an actual occurrence, that's good enough to count as a fact. In fact (pun intended), I disagree with your definition of fact, which you have presented to me as having objective reality (not subjective, as I would assert). Now what? This is the problem we as Christians have with a number of assertions from the scientific community--they present some things as fact when they are at most extrapolations of lesser phenomena. Just as you seem to bristle when we present the bible as fact. Which, by the way, the bible does present its contents that way--as objective reality. Are you willing to accept it as fact just because it is presented that way?

Interpretation (to interpret) - to explain the meaning of something or to conceive in the light of individual belief, judgment, or circumstance

Scientific method - exploration and documentation of facts; analysis and comprehension of patterns in the facts leading to Laws; consolidation of laws into Theories; validation of theories through forecast of yet unknown facts
(as you can see, no interpretations necessary)

And yes, interpretations do scare me, like the inquisition or sectarian warfare

the inquisition and sectarian warfare are both examples of application rather than interpretations. Shouldn't you be just as scared of scientific application? Like eugenics (sterilizing those not fit enough) or euthanisia (killing those that have ceased to be useful) or abortion (killing unborn humans because they aren't human enough yet).

yeah :chuckle: don't give up, I'm listening.
Well I guess style is subjective, of course I picked a somewhat more provoking video for the fun of it, but I am disappointed if your only conclusion after having watched it, is that it's propaganda.
Propaganda for what exactly, if I may ask?

I think my next question to you answered this question of yours--whether there's still a link between the science of today and the religion of today.

Interesting question. I cannot be sure of what significance that connection used to be. I'm sure it's possible to find counter-examples in ancient Greece, even in medieval Arabia, where religion had no influence.
But within the modern context, I'm doubtful religion has any role left to play. However I'm looking forward to your opinion on this.

Cheers

Here's the dictionary.com definition of "religion" (with my emphasis and parenthetical added):
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially (but not necessarily) when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually (but not necessarily) involving devotional and ritual observances, and often (but not necessarily) containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

I admit mine, but have you admitted yours?
Blessings
(Please forgive me if I don't reply as quickly next time--I've left my buddy Alwight hanging far too long on his reply to me.)

 

[Jonahdog]

Here's the dictionary.com definition of "religion" (with my emphasis and parenthetical added):
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially (but not necessarily) when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually (but not necessarily) involving devotional and ritual observances, and often (but not necessarily) containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

The cause of the universe appears to be something that happened 14+ billion years ago. The nature of the universe is chemistry and physics. The universe has no purpose, it just is.
Any moral code is a cultural result.

 

[Jonahdog]

OK. .. I guess your quote marks were accidental.


What Morris actually said (according to your link)

"The chief candidate for such a transitional form [sc., between fishes and amphibians] was long supposed to have been the coelacanth.... The coelacanth was believed to have finished* this transition sometime in the Mesozoic.... Evolutionists were embarrassed when it was discovered in 1938 that these fishes are still alive and well, living in the waters near Madagascar"

Can you provide a citation to the literature that suggests the coelacanth was the chief candidate for a transitional form between fish and amphibians?

 

[DavisBJ]

Yes... not extinct 65 million years ago like evolutionists said. They didn't have some primitive type lung. They didn't evolve into land critters...etc
Thank goodness science helps keep in check the evolutionists just so stories.

Can someone explain to me why this coelacanth thing is so big for creationists? If scientists see evidence of a certain type of fish in the fossil record, and can’t find a living one, is it unreasonable to assume it went extinct, just like lots of other species did? And then to their surprise, the fish is found to still exist, so what? Most of us make mistakes like that – thinking something is gone cause we can’t find it, and then it shows up somewhere - pretty regularly. Does that turn it into an “embarrassment”, or a “just-so” story?

 

[Jonahdog]

Can someone explain to me why this coelacanth thing is so big for creationists?

Creationists need things to be constant and unchanging---well at least since Noah's time. They need to know everything with certainty. If they believe in their god they are set for the hereafter. Science allows for change. For creationists to allow for change would threaten their intellectual understanding of the universe. Makes creationists very uncomfortable.

 

[iouae]

Can someone explain to me why this coelacanth thing is so big for creationists? If scientists see evidence of a certain type of fish in the fossil record, and can’t find a living one, is it unreasonable to assume it went extinct, just like lots of other species did? And then to their surprise, the fish is found to still exist, so what? Most of us make mistakes like that – thinking something is gone cause we can’t find it, and then it shows up somewhere - pretty regularly. Does that turn it into an “embarrassment”, or a “just-so” story?

If memory serves, the Coelacanth was taught as a transition fossil, a missing link between animals transitioning from sea to land. Below is a hint at that role it was supposed to have played in evolution.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...th-fish-left-behind-by-evolution-8577129.html

"Coelacanths grow about four feet long and have conspicuously fleshy fins that resemble the limbs of four-legged land animals with backbones, the vertebrate “tetrapods” such as frogs, lizards and mammals. This and their ancient lineage suggested they may be closely related to the first fish that made the evolutionary transition from sea to land....

...A genome analysis also found that the coelacanth is unlikely to be directly descended from the first fish to walk on land. A more likely candidate is the lungfish, which are closely related but have a much more complicated genome, the scientists said."

Creationists, I guess, like to gloat when evolutionists "missing links" turn out to be no links at all.

Sometimes evolutionists deliberately falsify evidence, such as...

Haeckel's Fraud

From.. http://cavern.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/shame.htm

"In 1866, guided by the bias of evolution and atheism, German embryologist and philosopher Ernst Haeckel, concluded that evolutionary the stages of species from single cells to humans (phylogeny) were repeated in embryological development (ontogeny) of each species. He surmised that, being highest on the evolutionary tree, human embryos should pass through the stages of the lower or more primitive species, namely single cell, to fish, to amphibian, to reptile, to mammal, to human. So convinced that he was right, he self-proclaimed the "Biogenetic Law": Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny. However, it was neither a law nor correct. It was fraud.

Haeckel supplied drawings as evidence of his “scientific law,” which can still be found in textbooks to convince students that evolution is a fact. The truth is, Haeckel’s drawings are wrong. Worse yet, they were intentionally created to mislead viewers to “see” what Haeckel believed to be true. "

 

[6days]

Can someone explain to me why this coelacanth thing is so big for creationists?

My argument with JoseFly was with his inaccurate 'quote' .
if it isn't a big thing (an example of a 65 million year mistake based on beliefs) to evolutionists...then don't fabricate quotes and strawmans as JoseFly did.

 

[iouae]

Why the coelacanth adds to this creationist's belief in God.

I have repeatedly said that Gen 1 describes God renovating the earth after a mass extinction which occurred 6000 years ago.

Gen 1:2 tells us that earth, after this mass extinction, was in darkness and covered with water.

But certain ancient animals could survive these conditions. In fact the Coelacanth, which lives at great depths in the ocean, in caves, would hardly have noticed that a mass extinction was in progress.

Thus, its presence on earth today, having the ability to survive EXACTLY THE CONDITIONS DESCRIBED IN GEN1:2 is a testament to the accuracy of the Genesis recreation account.

And Gen 1:1 occurred billions of years before the mass extinction described in Gen 1:2. It is only young earth creationists who (rightly) have problems with ancient fossils.

God created the coelacanth over 65 million years ago. The coelacanth survived whatever event destroyed the dinosaurs. It survived the mass extinction 6000 years ago. It survived the deluge 4400 years ago. It is a testimony to the accuracy of the Bible.

 

[alwight]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik

Spoiler

 

[Jonahdog]

Why the coelacanth adds to this creationist's belief in God.

I have repeatedly said that Gen 1 describes God renovating the earth after a mass extinction which occurred 6000 years ago.

Gen 1:2 tells us that earth, after this mass extinction, was in darkness and covered with water.

But certain ancient animals could survive these conditions. In fact the Coelacanth, which lives at great depths in the ocean, in caves, would hardly have noticed that a mass extinction was in progress.

Thus, its presence on earth today, having the ability to survive EXACTLY THE CONDITIONS DESCRIBED IN GEN1:2 is a testament to the accuracy of the Genesis recreation account.

And Gen 1:1 occurred billions of years before the mass extinction described in Gen 1:2. It is only young earth creationists who (rightly) have problems with ancient fossils.

God created the coelacanth over 65 million years ago. The coelacanth survived whatever event destroyed the dinosaurs. It survived the mass extinction 6000 years ago. It survived the deluge 4400 years ago. It is a testimony to the accuracy of the Bible.

Any citations to the scientific literature of the mass extinction 6000 years ago?
If your god wanted to start over---why? Was he just unhappy with humans? If so, why kill everything? If he really wanted to start over and he was all-powerful, why let the coelacanth living? His power could'nt go that deep?

It is so much fun to see people make up the real world to fit with their own interpretation of several thousand year old religious myth.

 

[alwight]

Sometimes evolutionists deliberately falsify evidence, such as...

Haeckel's Fraud

From.. http://cavern.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/shame.htm

"In 1866, guided by the bias of evolution and atheism, German embryologist and philosopher Ernst Haeckel, concluded that evolutionary the stages of species from single cells to humans (phylogeny) were repeated in embryological development (ontogeny) of each species. He surmised that, being highest on the evolutionary tree, human embryos should pass through the stages of the lower or more primitive species, namely single cell, to fish, to amphibian, to reptile, to mammal, to human. So convinced that he was right, he self-proclaimed the "Biogenetic Law": Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny. However, it was neither a law nor correct. It was fraud.

Haeckel supplied drawings as evidence of his “scientific law,” which can still be found in textbooks to convince students that evolution is a fact. The truth is, Haeckel’s drawings are wrong. Worse yet, they were intentionally created to mislead viewers to “see” what Haeckel believed to be true. "

Citing some supposed fraud from 1866 seems a bit desperate to me. But then again :

"While it has been widely claimed that Haeckel was charged with fraud by five professors and convicted by a university court at Jena, there does not appear to be an independently verifiable source for this claim.[32] Recent analyses (Richardson 1998, Richardson and Keuck 2002) have found that some of the criticisms of Haeckel's embryo drawings were legitimate, but others were unfounded."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Haeckel

It would be very unfair imo to simply write off all of Haeckel’s work and thereby imply Darwinian evolution to be based in a fraud, when what it actually does is show quite well that science is very capable of correcting inaccuracies and indeed confirming good work or that which is perhaps less than rigorous.

I might argue that "The Genesis Flood" by Henry M Morris was a fraudulent attempt at reconstructing the past, but where would that get us?

The truth is that we individually can read their words and compare them to reality and evidence presented to us.
I will suggest that there is far more facts, science, reality and evidence behind Haeckel's work than the founder of modern day YECism Henry M Morris.

The term "evolutionist" was perhaps rather more apt back in Haeckel's time than now, despite 6days and other YECs being rather keen to preserve a 19th century view as Darwinian evolution's current state of the art. No one in science these days anyway needs to push Darwinian evolution because it simply isn't disputed as being true. Creationists otoh who like to think there is actually something to argue about would apparently rather argue with "evolutionists" than in meeting science head on. lain:

 

[iouae]

Any citations to the scientific literature of the mass extinction 6000 years ago?

End of the Pleistocene, beginning of the Holocene.
Science just got their dating wrong at 11000 years.

If your god wanted to start over---why? Was he just unhappy with humans? If so, why kill everything? If he really wanted to start over and he was all-powerful, why let the coelacanth living? His power could'nt go that deep?

Good guess. He was done with Homo erectus, Neanderthals etc. and wished to start with a clean slate and Homo sapiens.

Why not let coelacanth, sharks, crocodiles, turtles etc. live?
He just did not want proto-human DNA contaminating modern DNA.

 

[iouae]

No one in science these days anyway needs to push Darwinian evolution because it simply isn't disputed as being true.

The young earth crowd have not done the rest of us believers any favours.

Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

Looking at the cosmos, we see God's handiwork in the heavens. I look at Hubble's deep space photos seeing the glory of God stretching back 13.75 billion years.

Looking at palaeontology I see the "firmament showing His handiwork". Each fossil, like T. rex and his buddies was a unique creation of God. And when He tired of these 65 million years ago, He scrapped them, made them into fossil fuel for us, and created brand new creatures. He foresaw a time when human development would be dependant on coal, oil, natural gas.

 

[TheDuke]

Perhaps I'm wrong but it seems you think secular humanism is not a religion. I'm sure we can find examples of societies that attempted secular humanism as a form of state sponsored religion. Start with North Korea.*

Wow, it seems only a YEC can make a statement that is wrong on every possible level, I don't even know where to begin.....

maybe it will help if you first define what YOU consider a religion, since I really can't see humanism being anywhere near it.

Especially "SECULAR" humanism, come on, mate, it's in the bloody title

Then, the part that almost knocked me off the chair, North Korea - a humanist state, like seriously, what have you been smoking lately.....

 

[Jose Fly]

OK. .. I guess your quote marks were accidental.


What Morris actually said (according to your link)

"The chief candidate for such a transitional form [sc., between fishes and amphibians] was long supposed to have been the coelacanth.... The coelacanth was believed to have finished* this transition sometime in the Mesozoic.... Evolutionists were embarrassed when it was discovered in 1938 that these fishes are still alive and well, living in the waters near Madagascar"

Well then, not only is Morris' quote rather ignorant (it assumes ancestral species cannot coexist alongside descendant species), it's woefully out of date.

Thanks for clarifying! :up:

 

[Jose Fly]

Can someone explain to me why this coelacanth thing is so big for creationists?

The coelacanth argument is something they've been trying to argue for over 4 decades, to no effect. AFAICT, they seem to think it makes evolution look bad because "evolutionists claimed it was extinct" and "evolutionists thought it was a transitional fossil". But all that does is demonstrate the ignorance of creationists (see my last post).

So really, its only value is in something like "Ha, ha...you guys thought these were all extinct, but they're not", to which I can only respond......*shrug* So what? :idunno:

 

[TheDuke]

I dare say you don't treat science with the same kind of scrutiny. Do you really validate EVERYTHING you read or hear about that comes with the "science" label? Remember that it's not enough just to have peer-reviewed journals and institutions that make proclamations--religious groups have those, too! And unless you're an expert at every branch of science, you eventually will have to "take their word for it" when they tell you something is true.

What I meant in my post was that SOMEBODY has to validate the 100%, of course, I cannot do it for all of science and in fact no individual can. But I can go as far as my knowledge allows me to, and hence I can rate the credibility of a scientific claim in areas I'm familiar with, in other areas you have to trust, or not

As for "creation science" I don't want to jump to conclusions because maybe not all of them are so terrible, but what I've seen so far was without exception just pure pseudo- and all too often sheer anti-science.

So as long as I just present something to you as having objective reality, or an actual occurrence, that's good enough to count as a fact. In fact (pun intended), I disagree with your definition of fact, which you have presented to me as having objective reality (not subjective, as I would assert). Now what? This is the problem we as Christians have with a number of assertions from the scientific community--they present some things as fact when they are at most extrapolations of lesser phenomena. Just as you seem to bristle when we present the bible as fact. Which, by the way, the bible does present its contents that way--as objective reality. Are you willing to accept it as fact just because it is presented that way?

Careful with the subtle differences between "information" and "objective reality". When I presented you with a definition of fact (BTW from Webster) it was a piece of information but not an objective reality, since, correctly, you can disagree. At this point, I hope we'll be able to find a consensus on the proper definition eventually
The bible as it exists (i.e. a book) is, of course, factual. Whether the contents are, that's the more interesting question. That's why it is not enough when a biblical claim of reality is made, just as it isn't enough to read a claim in a scientific paper. Everything MUST be validated

the inquisition and sectarian warfare are both examples of application rather than interpretations.

Yes, application of the conclusions of a particular interpretation. When a person reads a holy book and interprets a passage about killing infidels as god's will and the path to heaven, I'm concerned.

Shouldn't you be just as scared of scientific application? Like eugenics (sterilizing those not fit enough) or euthanisia (killing those that have ceased to be useful) or abortion (killing unborn humans because they aren't human enough yet).

Well, if you want to talk about the "dark side" of science, sure, I just thought you'd go with nerve gas and human experiments. The examples you stated are actually not scientific.

Eugenics - artificial selection (i.e. breeding) of humans
is just as scientific as breeding ponies. And if you really want to look into history, has been applied on African slaves in the south on a much more "successful" scale than in the 20th century.

euthanasia - mercy killing
is an ethical subject, as controversial as it may be, doesn't scare me at all. In fact I'm terrified of the contrary prospect of a conscious full paralysis or coma.

abortion - preemptive ending of pregnancy
is, just like euthanasia, an ethical subject. Unlike the former two, this is actually even open to biblical interpretation, where human life is defined to begin at the moment of the first breath, just FYI.

Here's the dictionary.com definition of "religion" (with my emphasis and parenthetical added):
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially (but not necessarily) when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually (but not necessarily) involving devotional and ritual observances, and often (but not necessarily) containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

I admit mine, but have you admitted yours?

Well, firstly I'd have to remark, that you completely changed the subject. Pity!
Then, I'll have to say that I'm not sure I can subscribe to that definition of religion completely, because it neglects the most important bit, that is the acceptance of statements about the world without evidence (and most often, despite evidence to the contrary)

Now, I consider myself without religion, let's see why:
- I have no beliefs about the nature and purpose of the universe, and I leave the discovery of the cause to science (currently I'm fairly certain that we'll never know the first cause)
- I don't believe in anything supernatural
- I don't participate in any rituals
- I don't subscribe to any ancient moral code

Questions?

 

[iouae]

"The most puzzling event in the history of life on earth is the change from the Mesozoic, the Age of Reptile, to the Age of Mammals. It is as if the curtain were rung down suddenly on the stage where all the leading roles were taken by reptiles, especially dinosaurs, in great numbers and bewildering variety, and rose again immediately to reveal the same setting but an entirely new cast, a cast in which the dinosaurs do not appear at all, other reptiles are supernumeraries, and all the leading parts are played by mammals of sorts barely hinted at in the preceding acts." (George Gaylord Simpson, Life Before Man, New York: Time-Life Books, 1972, p. 42.)

Embarrasingly hard for Evolutionists to explain, very easy for Creationists.
God destroyed one world and created another.

 

[Jose Fly]

Gotta love it when creationists post quotes that are almost half a century old in an "Oh yeah, what about this then" manner, apparently never appreciating that if the statement hasn't had an impact in the last 40+ years, it probably isn't going to today.

This is yet another reason why creationists are laughed at.

 

[6days]

I have repeatedly said that Gen 1 describes God renovating the earth after a mass extinction which occurred 6000 years ago.

Your compromised version of God's Word ....
'In the beginning, God renovated the earth'

Gen 1:2 tells us that earth, after this mass extinction, was in darkness and covered with water.

Perhaps it says that in your compromised version. But God's Word only speaks of the mass 'extinction' of Noah's flood, as well as a future 'extinction'.*

You are correct that the earth was in darkness before God created light. You are correct that the earth was covered in water, on day 1.*

And Gen 1:1 occurred billions of years before the mass extinction described in Gen 1:2.

*
The Hebrew language and Old Testament scripture contradict the various forms of the gap theory.*

God created the coelacanth over 65 million years ago.* The coelacanth survived whatever event destroyed the dinosaurs.

Exodus 20:11*For in six days the*Lord*made the heavens and the earth, and all that is in them,