Creation or Evolution. What do you believe?

[Vindex_Urvogel]

Reply to Melchior cont’d:

I must applaud your brilliant and sophisticated use of language to completely avoid answering what I wrote. Instead you resort to highbrow insults and belittlement. Ad hominem attacks are always the last resort of the desperate. You have proven you have a vast vocabulary and remarkable aptitude for arrogance. And you call me a pseudo-intellectual? Your post could be used as a textbook example. You challenged my philosophical premise when it was actually a simple logical premise (again see your quote - the logic holds). You made a claim and I challenged you to prove your claim. You have failed to do so. Perhaps you thought you could silence the opposition by burying the issue in a deliberately verbose and jargon filled post. Of course, this board is mostly laymen. But please don’t insult everyone’s intelligence by assuming we can’t think because we choose to use terms everyone actually understands. You could have answered in a way that was understandable to all. But that would not have been nearly as impressive, would it?

Ironically, this entire post is a condemnation of my argumentation as argumentum ad hominem, and yet is exemplar of this very logical fallacy. In order for me to be guilty of argumentum ad hominem in my discussion with Melchior, I would have had to ignore data presented on his part in favor of arguing against him on personal grounds. As Melchior, however, has produced no data in any of his arguments to suport his standpoint that evolutionary biology is not a sufficient explanation for the diversity of life and the origin of morphological novelties, by definition an argumentum ad hominem in any conversation with him, is not possible. Melchior appears to have confused or conflated the use of appropriate philosophical terminology (what one might inexplicably call “big words”) with an argument directed against the man. One is left to wonder how any formalized discussion is to be had, for instance, among scientists if “jargon” is construed to be grounds for argumentum ad hominem! Interestingly enough, in the segment of his reply quoted above, he seems to imply that logic is not a subset of philosophy, as he distinguishes a philosophical premise from a logical premise. As logic is classically considered a subset of philosophy, perhaps Melchior could define why we should not consider it as such, or if this was not his argument at all, clarify what in fact he was endeavoring to say. We further see in this quotation reference to an as yet undefined evidentiary standard and call for formal proofs which, as noted in earlier responses, are inappropriate for the subject matter under discussion.

In summary, let us consider the problems with the philosphical structure of Melchior’s argumentation:

1. He has accused me of an undistributed middle fallacy, but as noted, this remains to be substantiated.
2. He has accused me of argumentum ad hominem, but failed to cite where this has occurred.
3. He has presented no data to support his assertion that evolutionary biology is bereft of explanatory power.
4. He has produced either deliberately or accidentally, strawmen fallacies, most especially vis-a-vis phylogenetic inference and the logical structure thereof.
5. He has engaged in argumentum ad hominem while accusing others of the same.
6. He has consistently failed to define his evidentiary standard, thus allowing it to conform to any new data advanced, precluding his hypothesis from falsification. This is an ad hoc argument and thus a logical fallacy.

Though Melchior appears to resent the focus on philosophical structure of his replies, he has presented no data for his standpoints which might permit us to examine on empirical grounds the validity of evolutionary biology or the lack thereof.

Vindex Urvogel

 

[Bracer]

(Last one, I promise…)
ChrisW:
I understand the argument by evolutionists that their confidence is the result of so many small evidences that all make evolution possible. But what the evolutionist doesn’t seem to understand is that the creationist uses an even larger spectrum of evidences, which make theism more credible than atheism. I think this is the point Jim O was trying to make about this forum. To limit the discussion to empirical data while talking to creationists, is futile because science is just one of many things to consider.

If evolutionists insist on discussing only science, then this discussion will indeed be futile. For as many evolutionists have already admitted, science cannot disprove God, and the confidence of belief in a creator by creationists does not rest on scientific data. There will be nothing to argue then, unless evolutionists try to insist science can somehow refute the possibility of a creator.

If evolutionists wish to dispute the existance of God, then by definition, they need to be ready to discuss evidences outside the realm of scientific data.
You know, you’ve come really, really close to getting it here – just turn those last couple of paragraphs around. Evolutionary biologists, working as evolutionary biologists, have zero interest in disproving the existence of god. Period. Full stop. In fact, a great many of them (once again, as has been pointed out before) are theists themselves, and see their work as bringing greater understanding of how god works (a view which, as also has been pointed out before, is even shared by the Vatican).

All an evolutionary biologist of any (or no) religion wishes to do is understand how the diversity of life on Earth developed. However, given that we’re talking about trying to describe the way the material universe apparently works, we have no choice but to limit ourselves to the evidence that can be materially tested and supported – there’s no other meaningful way to go about it, because again, the supernatural is untestable by definition. And, as it happens, just about all of the material evidence we do have, and all that science has been able to verify, points to the principles of evolutionary biology as the only supportable explanation for the diversity of life we observe.

Now, as I said, turn your statements around – if a creationist then wants to look outside the realm of the material and believe this observable phenomenon implies the existence of a creator, that’s fine. No problem there. We can then go on to argue whether such a position is logically supportable, but we’ll have left the discussion of materially testable evidence behind.

You seem to grasp this, so I guess I’m just kind of puzzled exactly what you’re trying to argue here.

(Whew! I hope you were able to follow this – I’m going to have to be much more careful about the quoting and cutting in future. Thank you for your patience.)

 

[JimO]

Bracer,

Your responses were thorough, well structured, and respectful. I particularly appreciate the respectful tone you have used throughout. I don’t normally jump in on forums because of the pitfalls associated with anonymous written communications. However, when I saw the turn that this thread took, I felt compelled to respond.

You touched on an issue in the third part of your response to Chris W that I wanted to comment on. Keep in mind that I consider myself a “Creationist” only in the sense that I adhere to the faith of the Catholic Church and, therefore, believe that God created. How He created or when He created is outside the scope of the creation narratives in Scripture.

Although some evolutionary biologists might have no interest in disproving the existence of God, some of those on this thread who represent evolutionary biology simply state that God doesn’t exist and dismiss the discussion of faith entirely. My point in all of my posts has been that discussion of the origin and perpetuation of life on earth from a scientific basis santized of faith/religion/philosophy is fine, but that is not the only basis for the discussion. A number of people on this thread would like to have a faith-based discussion. Unfortunately, those who respond as atheists (I won’t call them atheists because this presumption has apparently offended some) refuse to allow a faith-based discussion because they reject the spiritual. This rejection mostly comes in the form of condescending quips designed to completely dismiss the faith of others as nonsense. You’ve read the comments. This would equate to me getting on a forum where the majority of people were atheists and insist that the basis for the discussion be that God exists and implying how stupid and foolish the participants were for excluding God from the discussion.

If this were not a Catholic Answers forum populated mostly by people of faith, I wouldn’t even have commented.

Thank you again for your respectfulness.

 

[Vindex_Urvogel]

JimO:

Although some evolutionary biologists might have no interest in disproving the existence of God some of those on this thread who represent evolutionary biology simply state that God doesn’t exist and dismiss the discussion of faith entirely. My point in all of my posts has been that discussion of the origin and perpetuation of life on earth from a scientific basis santized of faith/religion/philosophy is fine, but that is not the only basis for the discussion. A number of people on this thread would like to have a faith-based discussion. Unfortunately, those who respond as atheists (I won’t call them atheists because this presumption has apparently offended some) refuse to allow a faith-based discussion because they reject the spiritual. This rejection mostly comes in the form of condescending quips designed to completely dismiss the faith of others as nonsense. You’ve read the comments. This would equate to me getting on a forum where the majority of people were atheists and insist that the basis for the discussion be that God exists and implying how stupid and foolish the participants were for excluding God from the discussion.

I fail to understand why you are consistently conflating two issues that haven’t the slightest bearing on each other. The validity of evolutionary biology is by definition a question of biological science. The validity of evolution falls or stands on the basis of empirical data alone, not what one believes in. Faith is being ignored not because we have no respect for it or somehow despise it, but because as far as answering the very simple question: “Is evolutionary biology a sufficient explanation for the diversity of life and the origin of morphological novelties”, faith is irrelevant. If we were discussing ability of quantum physics to explain the behavior of sub-atomic particles, and the validity of the quantum physics model, would we be discussing empirical data which either supports or refutes said model, or would we be discussing faith and belief-systems? Your statements that we refuse to debate evolution on any grounds other than what would falsify or uphold it (i.e., empirical data) because we reject spirituality is pompous assumption of our personal belief structures, which I at least, have not once commented on. It is not being labelled an atheist that is offensive, it is the bald assumption you have made that because I wish to discuss the validity of evolutionary biology in terms that permit this concept to be either falsified or verified, I am somehow spiritually bereft, that is offensive. To use faith and belief-structure as data to support or falsify a scientific postulate violates the very definition of what each concept (both faith and scientific postulates) are. It is the worst possible philosophical transgression. Until such time it is recognized that you have to refute evolutionary biology using empirical data (and similarly must verify it using empirical data), there is no debate occurring on this thread about evolution.

Vindex Urvogel

 

[Melchior]

Originally Posted by buffalo
Adaptations have been shown, but evolution into another species has not. It remains a theory.

(Vindex) Terribly sorry, chap, but it has. Why, there was just recently a speciation even in Icterus. And besides our avian friends, there is always the good old Drosophila. Plants are pretty speciose creatures too, and speciation has often been demonstrated there too.

You are correct that I set up the wrong logical fallacy (undistributed middle). Had I put more thought into it I would have pointed out that your answer to buffalo exhibited three logical fallacies: Limited Scope, Inconsistency and Irrelevant Conclusion.

In the finest tradition of the author herein cited, one is greeted with a post so crowded with dissimulation and distortion, burdened with convoluted, **pseudointellectual ** bloviation, and philosophical bankruptcy, as to be scarce worthy of our attention.

Philosophical difficulties in Melchior’s reply, however, do not end there. In a thoroughly wretched and incoherent manner…

Perhaps the fallacy of prejudicial language would be more appropriate than ad hominem. But the areas I have bolded indicate ad ad hominem attacks within your prejudicial language. I readily admit that I responded in kind.

As for your strawman accusation that is false. I did not attack a different or waker argument. I attacked the one you actually made. So your strawman accusation does not hold.

Though he continues to use terms such as “evidence” and “proof” and “universally accepted” he has not explicitly enumerated the criteria which underwrite his evidentiary standard and thus we are left with no frame of reference for what is considered valid evidence or “universally accepted” evidence. Such infinitely mutable evidentiary standards are ad hoc structures meant to preclude a hypothesis from falsification. Until such time as Melchior defines in explict terms his evidentiary standard, it is exceedingly difficult to host any meaningful discourse.

The last bit of irony is that you still refuse to answer the main question by acting as if my very simple and straight forward question was actually too complex to be answered. You basically say that common language cannot be used to give an answer. Does anyone else think my question was ambiguous? Verifable means: Capable of being verified; confirmable. You cannot tell me that you have no idea what I mean by “conclusive evidence …, uncontested, verifiable, universally accepted, no room for error proof”. Since others have not provided the evidence, that you say they did I will be happy to concede victory. There is no hard verifiable, observable evidence of any other species evolving into man. It has never left the realm of theory. Unless you have this evidence (and I believe you do know what I mean) this discussion should end.

All that logical and scientific stuff aside, you have my apologies for my thin skin and my reactionary attack. I am certain if this were face to face we would be having a lively discussion over a few a beers and it would remain much more civil. The anonymity of message boards has a tendency to make people bolder, more defensive and less human than in real life interaction. I am mainly referring to myself.

Mel

 

[JimO]

Vindex,

I have been clear both on this thread and in personal messages (PM) to you that I have no dispute with you about the scientific validity of evolutionary biology. The term “spiritually bereft” is your term, not mine and because you have not stated your opinion on the existence of God and based on the data in your public profile, I presumed that you are not a theist. My apologies for the presumption, but your stated position sheds some light on your theological beliefs and if you won’t state them clearly, then, as I said in my PM, don’t get offended when people make inferences.

I and others believe that the physical and spiritual are intimately linked so that it is perfectly reasonable to blend discussion of faith and science. That is my opinion. You obviously don’t agree. That is your opinion. Opinions are not right or wrong.

So we disagree. It happens all the time.

 

[Vindex_Urvogel]

Melchior:

You are correct that I set up the wrong logical fallacy (undistributed middle). Had I put more thought into it I would have pointed out that your answer to buffalo exhibited three logical fallacies: Limited Scope, Inconsistency and Irrelevant Conclusion.

As the statements to which my own were addressed explicitly dealt with the validity or not of speciation, and whether it occurred I fail to see the validity of any of these allegations. Please provide the definition of all three of these logical fallacies and the appropriate examples from my prior discussions.

Perhaps the fallacy of prejudicial language would be more appropriate than ad hominem. But the areas I have bolded indicate ad ad hominem attacks within your prejudicial language. I readily admit that I responded in kind.

Argumentum ad hominem scarcely equals personal criticism. Argumentum ad hominem is very explicitly defined as the refusal to address the data offered by an opponent in favor of arguing against them personally. Your bolded statements do not conform to the generalized expression of an argumentum ad hominem, and thus I ask you to clarify exactly why they represent such a fallacy, preferrably with reference to the exact type of argumentum ad hominem those bolded statements represent (since there are, after all, more than one).

As for your strawman accusation that is false. I did not attack a different or waker argument. I attacked the one you actually made. So your strawman accusation does not hold.

I will admit that if you presented the demand for an orthogenic ancestor/descendant statement of relationship from lack of familiarity with phylogenetic inference and the logical structure thereof, then no, you did not commit a strawman fallacy, and I have stated as much from the beginning. If however, you knew full well that such a statement of relationship was unscientific and something which evolutionary biology does not produce anyway, then yes, you did produce a strawman fallacy by deliberately distorting what evolutionary biology would suggest was the relationship between two taxa.

The last bit of irony is that you still refuse to answer the main question by acting as if my very simple and straight forward question was actually too complex to be answered. You basically say that common language cannot be used to give an answer. Does anyone else think my question was ambiguous? Verifable means: Capable of being verified; confirmable. You cannot tell me that you have no idea what I mean by “conclusive evidence …, uncontested, verifiable, universally accepted, no room for error proof”. Since others have not provided the evidence, that you say they did I will be happy to concede victory. There is no hard verifiable, observable evidence of any other species evolving into man. It has never left the realm of theory. Unless you have this evidence (and I believe you do know what I mean) this discussion should end.

Oolon provided the requisite data to suport the sister group relationships of hominids, which have consistently failed to dispute on any but rhetorical grounds. If for some reason you don’t like Oolon’s posts and want me to digress on hominid evolution, I am terribly sorry to disappoint you. I simply don’t know that much about human evolution and thus am not going to pontificate on a topic I know nothing about–it would be dishonest. I leave it to Oolon, who does know things about hominid phylogeny. My posts in repsonse to yours have made it explicitly clear that Oolon already provided such evidence, while I would ask you to clarify your evidentiary standard, which you still have not done. Indeed your very statements quoted above border on argumentum ad populum, by apparently appealing to the other individuals posting on this thread to verify that you have indeed defined your evidentiary standard. The question is very simple: what is acceptable evidence to you of the sister group relationships of hominids, give us an example, not vague platitudes. For instance, if someone asked me what acceptable evidence would be for the sister group relationships of Aves and Deinonychosauria, I would say, “a feathered dromaeosaur” not “universally accepted proof.” It is really, truly, very simple. An example of what you consider a “universally accepted” datum. Once you have done this we can gauge your evidentiary standard and proceed to discuss the data.

Vindex Urvogel

 

[Vindex_Urvogel]

JimO:

Vindex,

The term “spiritually bereft” is your term, not mine and because you have not stated your opinion on the existence of God and based on the data in your public profile, I presumed that you are not a theist. My apologies for the presumption, but your stated position sheds some light on your theological beliefs and if you won’t state them clearly, then, as I said in my PM, don’t get offended when people make inferences.

In the lack of any appropriate data, inferences cannot be made. They become speculations at that point.

I and others believe that the physical and spiritual are intimately linked so that it is perfectly reasonable to blend discussion of faith and science.

While that may be so, evolutionary biology can only be falsified or upheld on the basis of empirical data. Consider for instance the reaction of the creationists here if I defended the validity of evolution by appealing to faith.

Vindex Urvogel

 

[Bracer]

(Things are flying so fast I don’t even know if this is relevant anymore, but what the heck…)

JimO:

Bracer,

Your responses were thorough, well structured, and respectful. I particularly appreciate the respectful tone you have used throughout. I don’t normally jump in on forums because of the pitfalls associated with anonymous written communications. However, when I saw the turn that this thread took, I felt compelled to respond.

And thank you. I do try.

You touched on an issue in the third part of your response to Chris W that I wanted to comment on. Keep in mind that I consider myself a “Creationist” only in the sense that I adhere to the faith of the Catholic Church and, therefore, believe that God created. How He created or when He created is outside the scope of the creation narratives in Scripture.

Not sure I quite understand you here, although taking a stab at it I’d guess you’re trying to say you believe in theistic evolution and are not a biblical literalist – did I hit it?

Although some evolutionary biologists might have no interest in disproving the existence of God, some of those on this thread who represent evolutionary biology simply state that God doesn’t exist and dismiss the discussion of faith entirely. My point in all of my posts has been that discussion of the origin and perpetuation of life on earth from a scientific basis santized of faith/religion/philosophy is fine, but that is not the only basis for the discussion. A number of people on this thread would like to have a faith-based discussion. Unfortunately, those who respond as atheists (I won’t call them atheists because this presumption has apparently offended some)…

(Breaking in here, but I wouldn’t be one of them. For the record that’s what I am Moving along…)

…refuse to allow a faith-based discussion because they reject the spiritual. This rejection mostly comes in the form of condescending quips designed to completely dismiss the faith of others as nonsense. You’ve read the comments. This would equate to me getting on a forum where the majority of people were atheists and insist that the basis for the discussion be that God exists and implying how stupid and foolish the participants were for excluding God from the discussion.

True enough. However, while I probably wouldn’t have put it quite like Vindex, the thread is entitled “Evolution or Creation? Which do you believe?” Not (for example) “What does evolution tell us about the nature of God?” Or (possibly a clearer example), “How does evolution affect the doctrine of Original Sin?” Now, I can’t speak for anyone else – I’m not a mind reader – but speaking for myself, had the thread been called something along those lines, I probably wouldn’t have even thought about offering any opinion at all. This is a Catholic board, and I haven’t considered myself a Catholic for going on 20 years now – it would be, if nothing else, kinda rude to butt in (now, go out and ask me my opinion, and that would be another story).

But, again, as Vindex pointed out (and again, I wouldn’t have put it quite in those terms) since the discussion does involve science and that which can be empirically proven, like Vindex I do feel that it’s worth at least attempting (respectfully, of course) to try to educate folks about what the facts actually are. (Although, as an aside, I rarely even do that, since my interest in biology is purely a hobby – my background is in physics, philosophy, and journalism – and I’m not nearly as well informed as I could be, or really, should be to do justice to the subject.) I understand that sometimes this can also edge over into essentially calling certain worldviews into question (biblical literalism being the obvious), but, well, I don’t know what else can be done, y’know?

However, while your disappointment here is understandable, again, I also don’t know if the snarking is avoidable in any practical way either. As I said above, I do try, but it can be incredibly frustrating to refute an argument (and I’m honestly not trying to point any fingers on this thread, just making a general point), only to have, worst case, the same poster seemingly willfully ignore you and make the same exact factual error again. Likewise, as I alluded to above, if the facts happen to conflict with someone’s beliefs, they’re naturally going to get defensive and snark away themselves.

I think even cursory glance of this thread would show there’s enough snarkiness to go around, frankly. All that I can do is what I pretty much do in every aspect of life – try to set a good example and hope others follow.

Thank you again for your respectfulness.

Back atcha

 

[Chris_W]

So many posts transpire between the times I can come back to the thread that I can hardly respond to all the things being said (even in response to me).

Since we seem to have a very diffcult time communicating, I thouht perhaps a very simple question might help:

To the evolutionists on this board (atheistic or theistic), Is scientific evidence able to falsify the claim that God exists?

This is a very simple question, either it can or it cannot. I don’t need all the flowery explanation of why or how it can or cannot, or how unfair the question is (Vindex). Just answer a simple question. Can science falsify the assertion that God exists?
If the answer is “no”, (and it most certainly is) then I am completely justifed in believing in God. Period.

Keep on performing your scientifc tests, seeking to further your evolutionary goals, providing yet more and more evidence to show that your theories are ***possible ** * (for that is ALL you can show).

If you choose to lock yourself in the little dark room of emperical data, feel free. As for me, I choose to be free to evaluate all kinds of evidence, realizing that knowlege and wisdom are far from the same.

But don’t presume to tell creationists that thier belief in God is wrong…until you can explain why (with or without scientific evidence).

 

[fcb2001]

creationism.

 

[Meatros]

Chris W:

To the evolutionists on this board (atheistic or theistic), Is scientific evidence able to falsify the claim that God exists?

God is ‘supernatural’ and can not be studied/falsified/etc by science. So God is neither able to be proven or disproven by science and no one on in this thread has said otherwise.
Chris W:

This is a very simple question, either it can or it cannot. I don’t need all the flowery explanation of why or how it can or cannot, or how unfair the question is (Vindex). Just answer a simple question. Can science falsify the assertion that God exists?
If the answer is “no”, (and it most certainly is) then I am completely justifed in believing in God. Period.

Um, why did you put Vindex in quotation marks? He hasn’t been trying to address the God question at all. He’s been address science and evolution, which you mistakenly keep assuming is atheistic in nature.

Unfortunately that’s your mistake, not his.
Chris W:

Keep on performing your scientifc tests, seeking to further your evolutionary goals, providing yet more and more evidence to show that your theories are ***possible ***(for that is ALL you can show).

Actually that’s not all we can show (nor HAVE shown), please stop confusing the layman’s definition of ‘theory’ with the scientists-they have two different, while related, meanings.
Chris W:

If you choose to lock yourself in the little dark room of emperical data, feel free. As for me, I choose to be free to evaluate all kinds of evidence, realizing that knowlege and wisdom are far from the same.

Actually you are the one who is closing your mind to science-while ironically using science’s fruits to type out messages denying modern science-not those who accept an old earth and evolution.
Chris W:

But don’t presume to tell creationists that thier belief in God is wrong…until you can explain why (with or without scientific evidence).

No one has said that belief in God is wrong; YOU keep insisting and assuming that acceptance of evolution equates to atheism.

Again, that’s your problem with comprehension (no offense, but apparently you can’t comprehend that you need not be an atheist to accept modern science).

 

[Meatros]

Meatros:

Again, that’s your problem with comprehension (no offense, but apparently you can’t comprehend that you need not be an atheist to accept modern science).

I know this sounds harsh, but I’ve been keeping up with this thread and you’ve been told this repeatedly, but it’s as if you just don’t seem to realize it.

 

[Jillian]

Melchior:

The last bit of irony is that you still refuse to answer the main question by acting as if my very simple and straight forward question was actually too complex to be answered. You basically say that common language cannot be used to give an answer. Does anyone else think my question was ambiguous?

Pardon me for jumping in here, but I’m going to have to say that yes, I do think your question is ambiguous. You go on to say…

Verifable means: Capable of being verified; confirmable. You cannot tell me that you have no idea what I mean by “conclusive evidence …, uncontested, verifiable, universally accepted, no room for error proof”.

Let’s just let slide the fact that whatever online dictionary you grabbed that from used a variant of the term in question as part of the definition of the term, which is just a nasty thing to do. The real problem here seems to be, from what I’ve been observing here so far, that you are using terms without actually understanding what they mean, and this is preventing you from communicating effectively. You keep using “proof” and “evidence” as though they are interchangeable, for example - they aren’t. Out of all the scientific disciplines, only the lonely mathematician gets to have proof - all other scientists are forced to frequent a distillery if they seek such things.

Even with that technical (but very important) caveat, it’s still unclear what you are asking for. You want evidence. Fine: evidence of what, exactly? Evidence that transitional forms exist at all, or evidence of of transitional forms between other primates and humans?

And now we come to the most fundamental bit of confusion here, the data that the other participants in this thread simply must have if any real discussion is to take place at all; and it’s the data that for some reason you continue to fail to supply them: What, in your eyes, would actually constitute such “verifiable, universally accepted, no room for error evidence”? If you can’t answer that question, there’s really no point in anyone continuing this discussion at all, because you don’t even know what it would take to convince you. If you don’t know what it would take to convince you, then you aren’t discussing this with the intent to learn, you’re merely preaching with the intent to convert.

I know, for example, what evidence it would take to convince me that transitional forms exist, and, to pick one example out of a vast field, I find that Archaeopteryx fossils fulfill my evidentiary standards quite nicely. I know what it would take to convince me that humans evolved from other primates, and once again to pick just one datum from a humongous bank, the telomere in the center of human chromosome 2 is pretty goshdarn persuasive to me.

So, how about it, Melchior? How about you tell us what it would take to convince you? What exactly would you consider evidence? Or “proof”, if you prefer.

Since others have not provided the evidence, that you say they did I will be happy to concede victory. There is no hard verifiable, observable evidence of any other species evolving into man. It has never left the realm of theory. Unless you have this evidence (and I believe you do know what I mean) this discussion should end.

Okay, so you perhaps are looking to focus this discussion on hominid evolution - you’ll have to pardon me if I seem a bit confused here, as you aren’t being very clear. Have you actually read anything Oolon has posted on this thread? His Great Skull Challenge is on the first page - you should check it out again. And if that fails to rise to the level of your evidentiary standard, would you mind being good enough to let us know exactly what that standard is?

And, because precision in terminology is so important to discussions like this, I have to point out that again you seem to be unaware of the correct definition and usage of technical terms relating to various evolutionary disciplines - what exactly is the “realm of theory” and why would one expect something to leave it? If it left…where would it go?

 

[Bracer]

Chris W:

So many posts transpire between the times I can come back to the thread that I can hardly respond to all the things being said (even in response to me).

Right there with you. (Pardon if I snip a bit.)

Is scientific evidence able to falsify the claim that God exists?

I think I have to generally agree with Meatros – ultimately, science has nothing to say about god one way or the other.

(Although if you’ll indulge a bit of an aside and forgive a possible derailment, in a broad practical sense this does sort of depend on your definition of god, since depending on what you think god would do, we ought to be able to test at least certain kinds of claims – if you thought god would rain down fire from the sky on command, for example. Perhaps even more narrowly, if you believe that god has done something – rained down fire on a specific spot on a specific date – we ought to be able to test that even more easily. However, technically all the negative case would prove is that your god does not, in fact, rain down fire on command, or didn’t actually do it at that spot at that time, and/or that you were mistaken [or perhaps god simply chose to remove all trace afterwards], not that such a being doesn’t exist or couldn’t rain down fire if it so chose. Likewise, a positive finding would simply show that something can rain down fire on command, or had done so on a given spot, not necessarily that it was the god you claim. Keep in mind, such evidence could be useful in building an inductive case, especially with respect to proving/disproving the more spectacularly interventionist ideas of a god, but deductively and logically it’s impossible to prove a negative. Which brings us back to the scientific point of view. However, I’m rambling and I digress badly…)

If the answer is “no”, (and it most certainly is) then I am completely justifed in believing in God. Period.

Keep on performing your scientifc tests, seeking to further your evolutionary goals, providing yet more and more evidence to show that your theories are ***possible ***(for that is ALL you can show).

If you choose to lock yourself in the little dark room of emperical data, feel free. As for me, I choose to be free to evaluate all kinds of evidence, realizing that knowlege and wisdom are far from the same.

But don’t presume to tell creationists that thier belief in God is wrong…until you can explain why (with or without scientific evidence).

Well, to be honest and without meaning any offense, I’m not so certain that this “completely justifies” belief in god, but that’s a different kind of discussion altogether – as you allude to by saying “with or without scientific evidence” (emphasis mine). Ultimately, no, I would never presume to tell a creationist, or any other theist, that their belief in a god is wrong on purely scientific grounds.

However, I would hope they would display the same courtesy and/or intellectual honesty and accept what science can prove.

And that’s all I have to say about that…

[Except to do a quick edit to add the positive case – sorry…]

 

[PhilVaz]

Great thread, I’ve been trying to keep up…

Yeah, both Keith Miller (geology) and Kenneth Miller (biology) are great examples of Millers who are Christian and Catholic theistic evolutionary scientists.

ChrisW, a lot of people have been responding to you, so I’ll just mention I have that Dalrymple transcript that you quoted. Its the infamous Arkansas 1981-82 “Creationist” Trial (also known as Scopes II) where the creationists were defeated in court. Dalrymple mentions in his deposition and during the trial the one scientist who he admits has at least some credentials who disputes the age of the earth. That is Kenneth Gentry who I already mentioned, but Gentry is not an expert in geochronology, but yeah he is a “young-earth” geologist (another example would be ICR’s Steve Austin who has a Ph.D. in geology). Gentry is interesting, but he’s been answered by other geologists (obviously his young-earth claims are totally rejected since there is no positive evidence for them). I have photocopied much of his book Creation’s Tiny Mystery (and now available online) which is what Dalrymple called Gentry’s polonium halos anamoly, a “tiny mystery.” I have read Dalrymple and Gentry, so I have studied both sides, though much of the discussion is difficult to understand for the layperson I’ll admit.

You can print out what is available of the trial transcripts as I have. Makes for interesting reading on the 1980’s creationism battle in the courts.

Dalrymple’s Deposition in 1981 Arkansas Trial

Gentry’s Deposition in 1981 Arkansas Trial

Phil P

 

[Melchior]

Jillian:

Pardon me for jumping in here, but I’m going to have to say that yes, I do think your question is ambiguous. You go on to say…

Let’s just let slide the fact that whatever online dictionary you grabbed that from used a variant of the term in question as part of the definition of the term, which is just a nasty thing to do. The real problem here seems to be, from what I’ve been observing here so far, that you are using terms without actually understanding what they mean, and this is preventing you from communicating effectively. You keep using “proof” and “evidence” as though they are interchangeable, for example - they aren’t. Out of all the scientific disciplines, only the lonely mathematician gets to have proof - all other scientists are forced to frequent a distillery if they seek such things.

Even with that technical (but very important) caveat, it’s still unclear what you are asking for. You want evidence. Fine: evidence of what, exactly? Evidence that transitional forms exist at all, or evidence of of transitional forms between other primates and humans?

And now we come to the most fundamental bit of confusion here, the data that the other participants in this thread simply must have if any real discussion is to take place at all; and it’s the data that for some reason you continue to fail to supply them: What, in your eyes, would actually constitute such “verifiable, universally accepted, no room for error evidence”? If you can’t answer that question, there’s really no point in anyone continuing this discussion at all, because you don’t even know what it would take to convince you. If you don’t know what it would take to convince you, then you aren’t discussing this with the intent to learn, you’re merely preaching with the intent to convert.

I know, for example, what evidence it would take to convince me that transitional forms exist, and, to pick one example out of a vast field, I find that Archaeopteryx fossils fulfill my evidentiary standards quite nicely. I know what it would take to convince me that humans evolved from other primates, and once again to pick just one datum from a humongous bank, the telomere in the center of human chromosome 2 is pretty goshdarn persuasive to me.

So, how about it, Melchior? How about you tell us what it would take to convince you? What exactly would you consider evidence? Or “proof”, if you prefer.

Okay, so you perhaps are looking to focus this discussion on hominid evolution - you’ll have to pardon me if I seem a bit confused here, as you aren’t being very clear. Have you actually read anything Oolon has posted on this thread? His Great Skull Challenge is on the first page - you should check it out again. And if that fails to rise to the level of your evidentiary standard, would you mind being good enough to let us know exactly what that standard is?

And, because precision in terminology is so important to discussions like this, I have to point out that again you seem to be unaware of the correct definition and usage of technical terms relating to various evolutionary disciplines - what exactly is the “realm of theory” and why would one expect something to leave it? If it left…where would it go?

Jillian,

I will give you a brief answer. I would be willing to bet that most people on this board understood me perfectly. If the topic of transitional stages cannnot be discussed in a way that an intelligent non-scientist can understand it then I honestly don’t consider it worth discussing. All I am getting is Clintonesque answers to a simple question. Depends what “is” is. Are there transitional stages of primate to human? Are there large groups of of a transitional species anywhere to be found? I have yet to see any “villages” of skeletal remains of sub human species that have been found. You would think their would be lots of these things around. How about two or three in the same area? How about one?

Honestly people with a high school education know what I am asking for.

Any topic can be broken down to laymen terms.

Mel

 

[Vindex_Urvogel]

Chris W:

So many posts transpire between the times I can come back to the thread that I can hardly respond to all the things being said (even in response to me).

Since we seem to have a very diffcult time communicating, I thouht perhaps a very simple question might help:

To the evolutionists on this board (atheistic or theistic), Is scientific evidence able to falsify the claim that God exists?

This is a very simple question, either it can or it cannot. I don’t need all the flowery explanation of why or how it can or cannot, or how unfair the question is (Vindex). Just answer a simple question. Can science falsify the assertion that God exists?
If the answer is “no”, (and it most certainly is) then I am completely justifed in believing in God. Period.

Keep on performing your scientifc tests, seeking to further your evolutionary goals, providing yet more and more evidence to show that your theories are ***possible ***(for that is ALL you can show).

If you choose to lock yourself in the little dark room of emperical data, feel free. As for me, I choose to be free to evaluate all kinds of evidence, realizing that knowlege and wisdom are far from the same.

But don’t presume to tell creationists that thier belief in God is wrong…until you can explain why (with or without scientific evidence).

I hate to tell you this, Chris, but neither I nor I think anyone else has actually argued that science can either prove or disprove the existence of a god, nor is science even remotely interested in doing so. Where do you get this idea that evolutionary biology cares a single whit about destroying the belief in a deity? Evolutionary biologists don’t care if you want to believe in a deity or not, most of them in fact, are just as pious in their faith as you. I am not trying to disprove God or even sully the belief in God, rather I am trying to discuss the evidence which either supports evolutionary biology or suggests an alternative posited by some here, that animals and plants do not evolve and evolutionary theory cannot account for the origin of morphological novelties. If you wish, perhaps, to argue that one cannot accept evolution and still be secure in their faith in the teachings of Christ, you are directly contradicted by your own Church (assuming you are Catholic), as in two Papal encyclicals it has been clearly stated that “truth cannot contradict truth,” thus, evolution guided by God (in other words, with ontological disparity added) is perfectly acceptable to the Vatican. If you think that the point of my efforts on this thread has been to disprove God, you are badly mistaken. I am attempting to combat anti-evolutionists (of any flavor).

Vindex Urvogel

 

[Vindex_Urvogel]

Melchior:

Jillian,

I will give you a brief answer. I would be willing to bet that most people on this board understood me perfectly. If the topic of transitional stages cannnot be discussed in a way that an intelligent non-scientist can understand it then I honestly don’t consider it worth discussing. All I am getting is Clintonesque answers to a simple question. Depends what “is” is.

Besides again indulging in argumentum ad populum in this quote, you have moreover revealed a most interesting aspect of the structure of your argument. How can one debate something if the parameters of the debate, such as the evidentiary standards and assumptions being made by the opposing sides are not made explicit? You seem to have complete contempt for the philosophical integrity of your argumentation, and indeed this is most visible, yet one can have proper data and not be able to make a valid point because the philosophical context in which they frame that data is faulty. Philosophy is essential to any argument; as much so as is the data of that argument.

Are there transitional stages of primate to human? Are there large groups of of a transitional species anywhere to be found? I have yet to see any “villages” of skeletal remains of sub human species that have been found. You would think their would be lots of these things around. How about two or three in the same area? How about one?

Oolon has already discussed a number of transitional forms in hominid evolution, I refer you to his earlier posts. By “villages” I wonder if you mean mass-mortality episodes, and will wait for you to clarify that. Similarly the term “sub-human”, not being scientific, requires clarification. One is also left to wonder why we should have “lots” of primitive hominid fossils and just what quantitative figure can be applied “lots.” Your principal point, however, that we should at least have some hominid transitionals in the fossil record is a perfectly valid expectation should humans have evolved. Fortunately, we do indeed have such transitionals, as Oolon has discussed at length.

Any topic can be broken down to laymen terms.

Discussions of scientific topics can only be simplifed so much. Consider for instance if we were discussing the morphology of the braincase in Archaeopteryx. There are no “simple” terms to describe a laterosphenoid, other than laterosphenoid. In any scientific discussion, one must have at least a rudimentary familiarity with the requisite language. Imagine trying to explain the Calculus to someone who had never taken trigonometry or any other of the mathematics upon which the Calculus is based!

Vindex Urvogel

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

Oolon Colluphid:

So sue me
condescending again, but don’t know how else to put it, so please bear with me… then I grew up.
Topic, topic…

/offtopic but short

Wow this verse struck me so hard when I read your confession. It’s as if Jesus was talking to you directly.

"Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
Whoever humbles himself like this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. "

God is love and love is the highest thing I know. peace

---

Theological speculation also off topic continues…

On evolution and Adam and monogenesis

Evolution certainly seems to be a part of God’s plan. I confess there are many things I don’t know. Monogenesis is not a requirement of Catholic belief, but belief in Original Sin is. If life sprang from non-life at some point, Adam qualifies: “formed man of dust from the ground” We are not angels but men of flesh. There is an emphasis on Man’s carnal nature here. This strikes me as the meaning in Genesis.

The concept of monogenesis is not a pre-requisite for original ensouled humans. I think some people have the idea that there was a proto man and then one generation there was Adam. It seems more likely to me that there were evolving(ed) men as part of the evolutionary process and perhaps God ensouled two or perhaps the garden was now ready for Man and God created the original pair. After all Adam’s descendants mated with (?)

Interesting speculation (to me at least)

peace