Dissent from Darwinism

[bigg cheese]

I'd like to recommend something. The Kent Hovind so quickly dismissed here just because he's had tax issues (that can be looked up -- don't care to discuss -- he screwed up), has done a number of public debates against evolutionists -- I have watched most of them, several years ago.

Please take some time to consider this.

Debate #02 – Creation vs. Evolution | Creation Science Evangelism - Creation, Apologetics, Evangelism

That's just one of them playing at that link, but there are other vids there too.

 

[eldirector]

OK, show me the tests that show that the big bang happened (by showcasing another one), for abiogenesis (by creating life from non-life), and show me macro-evolution (by doing it). And then when all that is shown, show me how the conditions used in the lab can occur in nature, an uncontrolled setting.

A theory isn't faith -- unprovable assumptions are. The foundation is sand, pure and simple.



Evolution is not required for gravity to exist. Gravity is testable and observable, as i said. My above challenges are not. Presuming macroevolution from dead things that may or not be related (To be observable, you would have to possess an entire "family tree" of actual animals going from one kind to the other. It doesn't exist.)

Why try to muddy the waters with all of these other concepts? I see this quite often with folks that get uncomfortable with the topic of discussion - they try to redirect.

Now, for evidence of Macro Evolutions. That's pretty easy. Now, you have to already understand how radio dating of materials works, and how genetic dating works. Once you have those concepts down, you can look back and begin building a timeline for a particular family of creatures. It, of course, will be incomplete. However, to test your "theory" you can try to predict the missing sections of your timeline. When you discover parts of the family that are from the missing times and they have predicted genotypes/phenotypes, the "theory" is strengthened. Repeat this hundreds, even thousands, of times, and it becomes hard to argue.

Need some specific examples of macroevolution?
THE EVOLUTION LIST: Macroevolution: Examples and Evidence

Need a simpler example? Modern corn was wild maize not all that long ago. Through selective cross-breeding, corn was developed and is absolutely a difference species than modern maize.

Need a post-modern-human speciation event? How about ANY domesticated animal?

 

[bigg cheese]

That is not macro evolution. That is variation within a kind. Sorry, Try again.

Lining fossils up in an order doesn't constitute a family. The observable proof in the pudding would be actual animals, you know, living, mating, reproducing, watching the change. (NOT BONES -- fossils only record death, anything else is an assumption)

But evolutionists don't have time on their side, because it just takes too stinking long to record that, so they accept by faith that the guys that decided to line up the fossils (like the outright fraud of lucy, or the horrible misinterpretation of piltdown man) knew what they were saying and were being honest. Thing is, they got in the textbooks as FACT for years before they were corrected.

Actually, those are covered in the previous link i just posted a few minutes ago. pretty good stuff you're missing .

 

[windellmc]

Why try to muddy the waters with all of these other concepts? I see this quite often with folks that get uncomfortable with the topic of discussion - they try to redirect.

Now, for evidence of Macro Evolutions. That's pretty easy. Now, you have to already understand how radio dating of materials works, and how genetic dating works. Once you have those concepts down, you can look back and begin building a timeline for a particular family of creatures. It, of course, will be incomplete. However, to test your "theory" you can try to predict the missing sections of your timeline. When you discover parts of the family that are from the missing times and they have predicted genotypes/phenotypes, the "theory" is strengthened. Repeat this hundreds, even thousands, of times, and it becomes hard to argue.

Need some specific examples of macroevolution?
THE EVOLUTION LIST: Macroevolution: Examples and Evidence

Need a simpler example? Modern corn was wild maize not all that long ago. Through selective cross-breeding, corn was developed and is absolutely a difference species than modern maize.

Need a post-modern-human speciation event? How about ANY domesticated animal?

I think you are confusing microevolution (observable, testable natural and unnatural selection) with macroevolution. There are only fossils as "proof" of natural selection. To get a hypothesis to theory requires a number of repeatable experiments. To get a theory to law takes an avalanche of repeatable experiments. There is nothing like that existing for macroevolution. It allegedly takes millions or years which makes it untestable for humans that live 100 years if they are lucky.

Macroevolution requires the addition of new data to DNA. Microevolution typically eliminates some of the data or makes it all the same so that the breed reproduces consistently true. Poodles for instance do not have the data left in their DNA to have offspring with shedding coats. Cross them with a Golden Retriever and you will get some dogs that shed like a Golden, some that shed very little or not at all and some in between.

Abiogenesis seems pretty easy to prove. We have great structural knowledge of many single celled organisms and even viruses which are simpler yet. We know all the parts and what they are made of. It should be a trivial matter for someone in a lab to recreate these organisms from a bunch of chemicals. Proving that could happen randomly in a planetary environment would be much more difficult, but as far as I know no one has been able to make it happen in a lab.

 

[windellmc]

I happen to like math and science also. I am not advocating that it be controlled by religion, actually quite the opposite. I am against it being controlled by atheism (which is a religion) which is the current situation. Science is meant to study the natural world by what it can and cannot prove. The real position of science is supposed to be agnostic but when it is being controlled by the atheistic religion it is not impartial. That is the sad state of our scientific community.

I wish I could have come up with such a short and concise explanation of the problem.

 

[bigg cheese]

I'm rewatching the video I linked to. Hovind makes a fantastic point. No Fossil can count of evidence of evolution. Why? You can't prove it had kids, the same OR different.

EDIT:

Watching this, I"m seeing an error that Hovind made, BTW .

You'll notice it when he speaks of ica stones -- much controversy surrounds them, and may well be a hoax. He should not have used them as an example with as much skepticism surrounding it.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Your example is awful.

Assumptions you don't have to make:
You know what a dog is.
You know you have dogs.
You know that they eat and crap.
You know you have a "closed system" (house that has nothing more in it than you know)

The Big Bang was just a fabricated idea out of thin air.
You can't observe one. All explosions ever recorded, observed, or otherwise, NEVER bring about order.
The universe may be a closed system. I tend to think that it is, but there is so much out there we don't know, I suspect we are still at the .0000001% of understanding it, much less explaining it.




I hate you for making me view his face. He sickens me




"links" between fossils have been provided, or should I say fabricated. Remember Lucy?



In "theory," if you'll grant me the pun, we agree. There has to be a distinction though, between what we can observe, and what we assume. Gravity is directly observable, testable, and repeatable by any living human. The Big Bang, spontaneous generation of life, the formation of the planets (but we don't even really know the conditions -- we hypothesize, and can't even come close to testing, except in a computer where we control the variables, AKA "make them up." and even our models have to violate what we can test for gases to do in a vacuum.)





When we can successfully test macroevolution, the Big Bang, abiogenesis, etc, let me know. Until then, you are assuming.

Yes, there were many things that I assume that I know... our understanding of DNA could be off, and a test could lead me to believe that the wrong dog did it... but over time the possibility exists for people to showcase that through experimentation.... that is science, the possibility to showcase an assumption's validity by application of the scientific process on natural evidence. The aspect of my example that you refuse to accept is that you do not have to be able to watch something happen to apply the scientific method - because if what we consider natural law is correct - and physical things manipulate other physical things - evidence tied to one physical thing may suggest another physical thing acted in a specific way. The timeline in which something happened is irrelevant to the possibility that it can be considered science... it may make it more complex to study, but it does not discount its scientific merits.

You still refuse to acknowledge that when something is hard or complex to prove does not discount it as a science. The fact that it exists in our natural world, and hard empirical evidence can be gathered to suggest if it is correct in a methodical way, puts it in the realm of science. If it did not exist in natural universe, and was inherently impossible to suggest with natural evidence - then it would fall outside the realm of science.

Evolution passes that test, even if you are not convinced that it is true - being convinced that it is true is irrelevant.

People believing 100% in the theories of evolution is irrelevant, and does not discount their scientific merit. Atheists believing that evolution disproves the existence of a supernatural deity is both incorrect and irrelevant, and does not turn a scientific theory into a religious belief - because even if they think that, it does not mean science can suggest that - it cannot be done. An atheist believing that God does not exist is as far outside the realm of science as any other religion, and has absolutely nothing to do with science - they do not exist in the same sphere of thought. The possibility that the evolutionary theories may not be correct does not discount them as science... because the theories exist within the sphere of our natural observable world, even if in the past.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Which is why it doesn't belong in biology class. Put it in one of the soft sciences.

It already exists in Philosophy.... but it cannot exist in natural sciences.

Evolution, however, does exist within the realm of natural sciences.

The problem when it comes to teaching religious beliefs in school, even if only in soft science like philosophy - is that it is against the law. Philosophy teachers get away with quite a bit that could be considered technically illegal ... because some philosophical teachings that are taught deal with religious belief, and it is generally overlooked since it is not a natural science.

 

[bingley]

I happen to like math and science also. I am not advocating that it be controlled by religion, actually quite the opposite. I am against it being controlled by atheism (which is a religion) which is the current situation. Science is meant to study the natural world by what it can and cannot prove. The real position of science is supposed to be agnostic but when it is being controlled by the atheistic religion it is not impartial. That is the sad state of our scientific community.

You are mostly right, but I am afraid you slipped. The real position of science is supposed to be scientific. Agnosticism is a form of religious thinking, not scientific thinking, because it already takes up a position about a supernatural matter. God should not be in the scientific vocabulary for the same reason it shouldn't be in a car repair manual. Both science and car repair teach you how to do things, how things happen. Science (and car repair) can say nothing about God, because it cannot even imagine the question. The ultimate existential reason for why something happens, is completely outside of the realm of science and car repair.

This is perhaps too fine and too deep of a point for most people to grasp. A surgeon operates on you and removes your tumor, so you get to live. Completely grateful and awed by his skills, you go back to the surgeon and ask him about the meaning of existence. Alternatively, you go to your priest and ask him to remove your tumor, oh, and by the way, do you take insurance? Get the drift? Intelligent Design and Creationism mix up the two sphere, being unable to accept that there is a realm with existential meaning and allegorical tales about creation of the universe and its creator, and there is a realm about finding certain material truths (and material truths only) about the universe through an established procedure.

Da Bing

 

[bigg cheese]

You still refuse to acknowledge that when something is hard or complex to prove does not discount it as a science.

I do not recall making that statement, but I do agree with you that it doesn't discount it as science. I discount the fact that macroevolution, the Big Bang, etc. are science, because they are not empirically demonstrable. Extrapolation can be a dangerous thing.

CSI guys who will determine who was shot where by what, because of blood spatterings or some such, can go into a lab, set up some ketchup packets, guns, and mannequins, and actually do it. Just saying so in a court without repeatable proof may show an attempt at "logicizing," (the mental richard simmons image will hopefully haunt you ) but nothing more.

People believing 100% in the theories of evolution is irrelevant, and does not discount their scientific merit.

I have to disagree. Believing it 100% taints one's worldview and therefore everything interpreted by that individual. You aren't going to find an unbiased human being anywhere.

 

[goinggreyfast]

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

I do not recall making that statement, but I do agree with you that it doesn't discount it as science. I discount the fact that macroevolution, the Big Bang, etc. are science, because they are not empirically demonstrable. Extrapolation can be a dangerous thing.

CSI guys who will determine who was shot where by what, because of blood spatterings or some such, can go into a lab, set up some ketchup packets, guns, and mannequins, and actually do it. Just saying so in a court without repeatable proof may show an attempt at "logicizing," (the mental richard simmons image will hopefully haunt you ) but nothing more.

If we live long enough, and continue to record history - it is plausible to show macroevolution in action.... the theory deals only with naturally measurable phenomenon, and attempts to yield an explanation for the mechanics.

Since macroevolution fulfills the strict requirements of natural science, it is a natural science....

Known data can be gathered and scrutinized to suggest if theories of macroevolution are true or false... the fact that it also applies to events that happened in the past does not truly encompass as a whole the theories of macroevolution... If the theories are true, then that would mean they are at work currently. Macrovolutionary theories do not claim that the way things happened in the past will never happen again... they attempt to explain natural phenomenon that is repeatable.

At the heart of the big bang theory is the idea of a constantly expanding universe, and the fundamental concepts of the big bang theory can be experimented on, because they also exist currently in nature (or do not, depending on the validity of the theory).

Neither theory claims that the mechanics they inherently discuss stop functioning at a time in the past. The theories can be applied to things in the past to attempt to paint a picture based on our best understanding of how the mechanics work, but the theories deal with the mechanics themselves, and not the subjective opinions that people conclude from them.

I have to disagree. Believing it 100% taints one's worldview and therefore everything interpreted by that individual. You aren't going to find an unbiased human being anywhere.

People's opinions that do not deal with scientifically observable phenomenon means nothing in the realm of science... those opinions excluded from science. Even if someone believes 100% that God does not exist, they cannot prove it through scientific means... it is not a possibility, no matter what their worldview is. Other scientists can believe with them, and they could even form a group to attempt the suppression of scientific study they do not agree with - but those actions are not science.

If belief in things outside the scope of science excluded people from applying the scientific methods on things within the scope of science, then science itself could not exist. Since natural science specifically defines rules for observing and assessing natural empirical evidence, beliefs outside that scope are not science.

Someone may hold a subjective opinion, and if it is something in which the scientific method can be applied to gather evidence that supports or contradicts their theory - science is ultimately what claims it true or false - not the scientist. People suppressing other experiments is not science... people altering scientific data based on goals that align with their subjective opinions is not science... science is a very strictly defined scope carefully concocted to exclude subjective bias.

 

[bigg cheese]

If we live long enough, and continue to record history - it is plausible to show macroevolution in action.

There. Until you do the above, it is assumed, plausible or not.

even if you claim that the theory explaining things from the past makes it complex to prove.

I still don't recall saying that. I said that you simply don't have enough evidence to support the assumption, so it is taken by faith.

science is ultimately what claims it true or false - not the scientist. People suppressing other experiments is not science...

I didn't know Science could do anything. I'd better make sure my gun checked in with me today, so it doesn't go kill someone.

people altering data based on goals that align with their subjective opinions is not science...

You're right. But it does happen, and to place faith in man's intellect and objectivity is just as much a religion as anything else. You may not go to the Church of Evolution, but its "clergy" establishment wants its federal grant money.


Final thoughts (i may not post any more unless the discussion stops repeating itself,as we keep hammering the same points both ways, and I don't want to bore anyone).

Origins and evolution are not scientifically palpable subjects, because too many pieces, the foundation of it isn't readily observable or repeatable. That said, Creation is part of a religion as well. Even if all the evidence pointed towards evolution, I would not lose my faith. I happen to think that my faith is affirmed by scientific study but that's not the point.

Proponents of evolution believe it just as much, but are not able to admit it.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

I think I understand your point as saying "people that believe science explains a technical truth without the implication of assumption are putting as much faith in the unknown as someone who has faith that religion yields technical truth without the implication of assumption". On that note, I could not agree more. Actually, I would argue that those that believe science explains technical truth are always flat out wrong - because science is inherently flawed by means of human observation, and the unknown. Believing in something that is logically incorrect, is not the same as believing in something that cannot be proven. Religious beliefs could be correct, and we cannot ask that question with science... science is at it's base assumption, so believing that it yields a technical truth is inherently incorrect.

I also agree that macroevolution etc are assumptions... but all science is an implied assumption - they are just assumptions that in general are given weight because what they explain can allow us to understand and interact with our universe in new ways.

 

[level.eleven]

I'd like to recommend something. The Kent Hovind so quickly dismissed here just because he's had tax issues (that can be looked up -- don't care to discuss -- he screwed up), has done a number of public debates against evolutionists -- I have watched most of them, several years ago.

Please take some time to consider this.

Debate #02 – Creation vs. Evolution | Creation Science Evangelism - Creation, Apologetics, Evangelism

That's just one of them playing at that link, but there are other vids there too.

No, Kent is quickly dismissed because he has no credentials. Never mind the fact that he and his wife didn't pay taxes because they claimed to be employees of God and thus were tax exempt. Kent's degree is from a diploma mill called Patriot Bible University in Colorado. He received it via mail while living in Florida. This is pre-internet, mind you.

But, this should tell you all you need to know. I present to you, Kent's dissertation that earned him the title of "Doctor".

http://c0122981.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/091209KenHovindThesis.pdf

This would have never made it at an accredited institution. Of course, at Patriot U, there is only one person on the board. Go figure.

None the less, the creationist movement has severed ties with Kent and his extreme, easily refuted, views. He is a quack.

Arguments Creationists Should Avoid - Answers in Genesis

Hey, apparently Patriot U is having a sale. Graduate degrees as low as $200. Seriously. The savings never stop!

Christian Accredited Bible Colleges Degrees, Patriot Bible University

 

[jdhaines]

Regarding the argument that keeps coming up about atheism taking more faith...c'mon guys...that's BS and you know it (or should).

Atheists simply don't believe in a god. It doesn't mean that they reject the existence of a god. It means they don't take any existence on un-proven and unsupportable faith. If you are a theist, then you believe, on faith, in the existance of some supernatural power without requiring scientific evidence for such a being. Atheists don't hold such a belief. Although a person is an athiest, that person would likely accept any suddenly generated scientific data proving the existence of such a deity...I know I would.

Another common misconception: People who are agnostics are not in a category of people who "don't know." The argument that everyone should be an agnostic doesn't hold any water. Of course I don't know, and neither do you for sure. Theists and Atheists deal in the non-evidence supported faith in an idea. Theists have it, atheists don't. Agnostics believe that it is unknowable. There is a difference between not knowing and believing it cannot be known. An agnostic person might make the statement:

"I believe the existence of God is unknowable because if there is no God, we'll never find evidence of Him and if there is God, He will never let us find scientific fact or else faith would not be required. I'll simply go about my life and try to be the best person I can be and enjoy my time since I will never know what comes after until I actually die."

Please try to understand the difference. Another one, just for good measure...

A theist may believe in many gods or a single god but the key distinguishing fact is that they believe the supernatural being can have direct and significant impact on our lives. (Ex: Christianity as in your prayers are heard and may be answered). Deists may believe in many gods or a single god but their gods have no way to directly impact our life here on Earth. Sometimes there is an abandonment idea such as God created the earth but didn't stick around. Often times there is a specific rejection of the idea of divine revelation of other religions meaning they don't believe God is nice to christians, and others are going to hell (or whatever flavor you happen to believe in).

An antitheist is someone who not only is an atheist in the sense of not believing in a god with no evidence, but also thinks the idea would be horrible and scary if it were true. An argument for that side, among many available to choose from, would be the idea of a Being sitting in the sky listening to your thoughts while you lay awake in bed at night and judging you all the time. You would have no privacy, no personal space, and no ability be secure in your own mind. Your thoughts would have direct impact on your situation after you died. That's a horrible idea and if the government would do that most of us here would die trying to stop them...yet somehow quite literally billions of people on the Earth subscribe to that daily.

Finally, the last one I want to touch on that drives me nuts. Atheism, by default, doesn't make someone devalue life. Someone made the point earlier about "would you rather" be part of gods holy creation or simply an evolution of a mammal here for one life only. I would answer in the latter, personally. I find it fascinating every day to be alive, aware, and strive to enjoy my life since it's the only one there is. You could very easily make the counter argument that religion devalues life as in you are here in this crappy place for a short length of time just twiddling your thumbs and waiting for your eternal bliss in heaven. We don't really need to have this argument...just be aware that there are opposite viewpoints. If we are simply an upgraded mammal with conscious rational thought how wonderful is it that things happened in just such a way that I could be alive for these few years and be around to enjoy all of the wonderful things of this life. What an idea to think about.

 

[Denny347]

Regarding the argument that keeps coming up about atheism taking more faith...c'mon guys...that's BS and you know it (or should).

Atheists simply don't believe in a god. It doesn't mean that they reject the existence of a god. It means they don't take any existence on un-proven and unsupportable faith. If you are a theist, then you believe, on faith, in the existance of some supernatural power without requiring scientific evidence for such a being. Atheists don't hold such a belief. Although a person is an athiest, that person would likely accept any suddenly generated scientific data proving the existence of such a deity...I know I would.

Another common misconception: People who are agnostics are not in a category of people who "don't know." The argument that everyone should be an agnostic doesn't hold any water. Of course I don't know, and neither do you for sure. Theists and Atheists deal in the non-evidence supported faith in an idea. Theists have it, atheists don't. Agnostics believe that it is unknowable. There is a difference between not knowing and believing it cannot be known. An agnostic person might make the statement:



Please try to understand the difference. Another one, just for good measure...

A theist may believe in many gods or a single god but the key distinguishing fact is that they believe the supernatural being can have direct and significant impact on our lives. (Ex: Christianity as in your prayers are heard and may be answered). Deists may believe in many gods or a single god but their gods have no way to directly impact our life here on Earth. Sometimes there is an abandonment idea such as God created the earth but didn't stick around. Often times there is a specific rejection of the idea of divine revelation of other religions meaning they don't believe God is nice to christians, and others are going to hell (or whatever flavor you happen to believe in).

An antitheist is someone who not only is an atheist in the sense of not believing in a god with no evidence, but also thinks the idea would be horrible and scary if it were true. An argument for that side, among many available to choose from, would be the idea of a Being sitting in the sky listening to your thoughts while you lay awake in bed at night and judging you all the time. You would have no privacy, no personal space, and no ability be secure in your own mind. Your thoughts would have direct impact on your situation after you died. That's a horrible idea and if the government would do that most of us here would die trying to stop them...yet somehow quite literally billions of people on the Earth subscribed to that daily.

Finally, the last one I want to touch on that drives me nuts. Atheism, by default, doesn't make someone devalue life. Someone made the point earlier about "would you rather" be part of gods holy creation or simply an evolution of a mammal here for one life only. I would answer in the latter, personally. I find it fascinating every day to be alive, aware, and strive to enjoy my life since it's the only one there is. You could very easily make the counter argument that religion devalues life as in you are here in this crappy place for a short length of time just twiddling your thumbs and waiting for your eternal bliss in heaven. We don't really need to have this argument...just be aware that there are opposite viewpoints. If we are simply an upgraded mammal with conscious rational thought how wonderful is it that things happened in just such a way that I could be alive for these few years and be around to enjoy all of the wonderful things of this life. What an idea to think about.

THANK YOU !!!!!! I tried to + rep you but I gotta spread it around first.

 

[DustinG]

I'm ending the argument because it is going in circles also. But I would like to thank you guys for being cordial and respectful; this is how debates should be. I would also hope that we can agree more than we disagree, being that this is a gun owners forum.

 

[jdhaines]

I'm ending the argument because it is going in circles also. But I would like to thank you guys for being cordial and respectful; this is how debates should be. I would also hope that we can agree more than we disagree, being that this is a gun owners forum.

The argument has gone in circles multiple times. No reason to end it now unless you just don't want to participate any longer.

I've learned some neat things from this thread.

 

[windellmc]

The argument has gone in circles multiple times. No reason to end it now unless you just don't want to participate any longer.

I've learned some neat things from this thread.

That was an interesting insight into Atheism that I have never read or heard before. It really helps me to see into the atheist mindset. The part about being terrified that there might be some supernatural being reading your thoughts was enlightening, and I had never though about atheism that way before. Thanks for the insight.