Creation or Evolution. What do you believe?

[JimO]

Chris W:

The whole geologic time scale was developed based on sedimentary rocks from all over the world. It is true that due because no one location has been likely under water (where deposition primarily occurs) throughout all of geologic history, there is no one location where rocks representing the entire geologic time scale are present. In fact, at any given location, it is likely that each distinct layer of rock (formation) represents a very small slice of “time.” Rocks, and the fossils contained within, are “aged” relative to one another. The volume of data collected over the years pretty much confirms the geologic periods that define the geologic time scale. I have not seen any legitimate debate disputing the relative ages of fossils that define the time scale. The timeframes assigned to geologic periods are based on assumptions developed from examination of rock formations worldwide.

What have been re-evaluated in recent years are the old assumptions about deposition rates (how much sediment is deposited in a given time period). The eruption of Mount St. Helens created layers of new sediments in lakes and valleys that were tens of feet thick. Using a typical marine depositional model, that much sediment could take thousands of years to accumulate. The same “re-thinking” has been applied to erosion and erosional features. A relatively recent near-failure of a large dam (I don’t recall the name) gave us a clear example of how quickly large erosional features can form. In short, rains caused the reservoir to reach its capacity. In order to avoid catastrophic failure, large volumes of water were released through a diversion tunnel. The force of the water began eroding the walls of the tunnel. Eroded particles gave the erosional “force” of the water more power (like a sand blaster). In the end, the steel reinforced concrete and several tens of feet of rock were eroded away in a matter of minutes.

You mentioned the Grand Canyon. The old theories suggested that a giant river slowly eroded the Canyon over millions of years. However, recent data, including satellite imaging, show erosional features that suggest enormous glacial lakes may have formed during the various glacial periods and that, as the glaciers melted, failures of the natural dams holding back the lakes released incredible volumes of water that eroded the Canyon in a series of catastrophic events.

It is possible that current understandings of historical geology may change as new data are gathered. That’s the scientific process. However, as I have stated in my posts, I don’t reject the idea of an ancient earth, nor elements of evolutionary theory. Our Catholic Faith is compatible with science. My purpose is not to try to force fit current scientific data into a specific interpretation of Genesis. I see Evangelical and Fundamentalist scientists attempt this and, frankly, on the whole, they are normally viewed as pseudo-scientists and not taken seriously.

It is important for scientists who are Christians to work within the accepted scientific framework. John Paul II said (I’m paraphrasing) that it is good to pursue a further understanding of the evidence that supports evolution, but that science will never contradict the Truth. In my opinion, it is best to engage scientists who are atheists in reasonable scientific discussion, but not to accept the atheistic premise that is often put forth at the outset of a discussion, where the spiritual is denied and only physical evidence (and only that evidence accepted by the atheist) is fair game. Those discussions go nowhere.

 

[Vindex_Urvogel]

JimO:

This is addressed primarily to Oolon and Vindex:

Both of you insist that the discussion stay on the validity of biological evolution. An atheist has no problem discussing only what science and math have to say about the universe. the problem is that for the Christian there is a foundational connection between the physical and the spiritual and to discuss either apart from the other is pointless. One of you pointed out that there is no point in saying that I have faith in gravity, for example. It is a physical law and if I deny it, I am stunned and perplexed when I have a bloody nose from stumbling over a rock. The same applies to spiritual truths. You can deny God all you want. You can talk down to us like we are ignorant children. You can point to “empirical” data and say that God has nothing to do with it. You can deny the “empircal” spiritual data and say that God does not exist. Sadly, you will one day wake up perplexed, with a “bloody nose” and no explanations.

If you want a purely scientific discussion devoid of philosophy or faith issues, then this isn’t the forum for you.

So long as you or others, here on this thread or elsewhere, wish to dispute the vailidity of evolutionary biology, they cannot define the terms of the debate to conform as they most see fit to their vision of reality. The validity of evolutionary biology is by definition a question of biological science, and thus matters of faith and philosophy, though perhaps important in why one chooses to reject empirical data, are irrevelant to establishing the factual validity or lack thereof, of evolution. If you refuse to address the validity of evolutionary biology on scientific grounds, you have by default admitted that evolutionary biology cannot be questioned with currently available scientific evidence, but rather on strictly rhetorical grounds with little basis in objective reality. Your pontification on the faith standpoints of Oolon and I, and the relationship of such standpoints to the factual validity of evolutionary biology (while curiously refusing to discuss the data you feel at least makes it somewhat less than a dead cert) is nothing more than argumentum ad hominem. Rather than debating the data Oolon and I have presented, you have argued that our lives are philosophically or spiritually bereft, while glossing over the data as it is no doubt inconvenient. If creationists or other skeptics wish to question evolutionary biology, by all means they may do so. If they wish to call their objections “science,” and wish to insist that they are grounded in empirical data, then they had better produce said data and meet the minimum philosophical requirements of science. If they do not, we will continue to stridently oppose speculation masquerading as scientific inquiry. If you wish to dicuss evolutionary biology and alleged “alternatives” thereto, without discussion of the data, then this debate is not for you.

Vindex Urvogel

 

[Vindex_Urvogel]

JimO:

Chris W:

The whole geologic time scale was developed based on sedimentary rocks from all over the world. It is true that due because no one location has been likely under water (where deposition primarily occurs) throughout all of geologic history, there is no one location where rocks representing the entire geologic time scale are present. In fact, at any given location, it is likely that each distinct layer of rock (formation) represents a very small slice of “time.” Rocks, and the fossils contained within, are “aged” relative to one another. The volume of data collected over the years pretty much confirms the geologic periods that define the geologic time scale. I have not seen any legitimate debate disputing the relative ages of fossils that define the time scale. The timeframes assigned to geologic periods are based on assumptions developed from examination of rock formations worldwide.

A geologist should know better. The geological column is preserved in its entirety at the least, in North Dakota.

Vindex Urvogel

 

[JimO]

Vindex,

You are still missing my point. I do not reject biological evolution. I’ve stated that in every one of my posts. I reject atheism and insist that the physical and spiritual are intimately connected; therefore, I insist that discussion of one without the other is pointless.

You, on the other hand, appear to reject the spiritual and provide as little justification as you claim that I provide (even though I have stated clearly that I have no dispute with you over evolution itself).

I never stated that you or Oolon are “spiritually bereft”. You both, however, claim to be atheists and don’t want to discuss spiritual matters, even though that is the main purpose of this forum. If you’re an atheist and don’t want to even discuss the spiritual, what is that, if not spiriturally bereft?

By the way, I stated, “It is true that due because no one location has been likely under water (where deposition primarily occurs) throughout all of geologic history, there is no one location where rocks representing the entire geologic time scale are present.” I stand corrected in that the second half of my statement was technically incorrect. My point was that there is no one location where deposition has occurred continually through geologic history (as indicated in the first half of the statement). I was trying to explain a basic geologic principle to a non-geologist. I should have been more precise.

My biggest problem with Oolon and you is that you both make statements, such as “A geologist should know better.” which suggest an intellectual arrogance. I often see this in atheists who think that they are, by definition, intellectually superior to people of faith because they reject faith in God as some kind of superstition or character flaw. Your comments and those of Oolon have that tone.

I ask you again, why are you on this forum if you cannot even show respect for the faith of the participants?

 

[Vindex_Urvogel]

Reply to Melchior:

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. There are at least two major philosophical flaws in the argument quoted above:

1. Ancestor/Descendant Relationships.
2. Alleged Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle.

The first is perhaps the most troublesome and comical. In the post to which this reply is directed, Melchior has pontificated at length on the need to display ancestor/descendant relationships between, presumably, any given taxa X, Y, and Z (assuming a simple trichotomy) with, e.g., X and Y more closely related to each other than either is to Z and the assertion that X is ancestral to Y. Such an assertion leads one to question the familiarity of the author with the logic of phylogenetic inference. The hypothesis that X is ancestral to Y is based on the plesiomorphic condition in X of the characters observed in Y, and yet it is a fundamental tenet of phylogenetic inference that plesiomorphic characters are not useful in determining phylogenetic relationships. If X is plesiomorphic for any given character state 1 in taxon Y, then it must also be stated that X is potentially ancestral sensu stricto to taxon Z. On the basis of character data, then, it is not possible to corroborate ancestor/descedant relationships. We may ask moreover if ancestor/descendant relationships are subject to the Popperian falsification criterion. If our hypothetical ancestral taxon X, displays any autapomorphic character 2 it is thus concluded that it is an aberrant form from the alleged linear progression from X to Y, and thus one could consider this to be a form of falsification as delineated by the Popperian philosophy. Problems arise, however, when we inquire as to how one determines the presence or absence of autapomorphy in a taxon. Autapomorphy is beyond mere unique character state presence in any given taxa, but rather a character which in the sister group thereto, exhibits the plesiomorphic state; ergo, autapomorphies are not inherited via common ancestry with the sister group in question. The inevitable conclusion is that one cannot scientifically or objectively discuss autapomorphies within any context that does not use the presence of synapomorphic characters as the principal criterion of phylogenetic clustering. Ancestor/descendant relationships by definition, however, invoke the usage of plesiomorphic attributes and thus autapomorphies cannot be objectively identified. The conclusion? Linear statements of ancestry/descent cannot be falsified. Considering these difficulties, it is most curious (or perhaps not) that Melchior should insist on the demonstration of what by definition cannot be falsified. He has either deliberately or unintentionally substituted a philosophical statement of relationship (i.e., ancestor/descedant) with a sister-group statement which argues on the basis of explicit, falsifiable data, that two clades share more recent common ancestry with each other than any other prospective sister groups. One is forced to conclude that Melchior either does not understand phylogenetic systematics, or has disingenuously asked for the demonstration of what cannot be objectively provided. Lest Melchior think this is tacit, albeit convoluted, admission of some creationist point, let us examine what actual evolutionary biology states. Three taxa, again, X, Y, and Z are examined to determine what if any relationship they bear to each other. Contrary to the strawman interpetration of phylogenetic inference provided by Melchior, the principles of evolutionary research suggest that if related to each other at any level, two of these three taxa will cluster as sister groups allied on the basis of uniquely derived morphological (or molecular) characters not present in one of the other taxa. Let us say the data indicates that X and Y cluster as sister groups, i.e., they share more recent common ancestry with each other than does either with Z. This hypothesis is based on the explicit enumeration of characters supporting this assertion that can be subject to falsification by the demonstration of alleged synapormophies of X + Y in Z. If Melchior wishes to invoke unheard of philosophical perversions of actual systematic research, he is certainly free to do so, but actual interest in the evolutionary origin of any clade (humans or otherwise) demands that he ask for the character data which supports that any given clade shares more recent common ancestry with any potential sister group, over another third taxon. Melchior has instead chosen to ask for unfalsifiable, vague, and generally uninformative statements of orthogenic ancestry between one taxon and another.

Vindex Urvogel

 

[Vindex_Urvogel]

Reply to Melchior Cont’d.

Philosophical difficulties in Melchior’s reply, however, do not end there. In a thoroughly wretched and incoherent manner, it would apepar that my opponent is attempting to accuse one of the logical fallacy known as the “undistributed middle.” Quite simply this is the fallacy that comes from attempting to argue two points as related without specifying why this should be. Melchior has scarcely, however, provided where in any statements offered by myself I have erred so egregiously as to engage in a rudimentary logical error of this sort, and I should think it most munificent of him to provide the appropriate examples for the readers of this thread. It would appear in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that charges of an undistributed middle fallacy are baseless.

Let us consider the statement that there are not transitional fossils demonstrating any sister-group hypothesis for humans. The very structure of the demand for evidence indicating human sister-group relationships from the fossil record is curious, in that it would seem to distinguish *Homo sapiens *from Animalia. Though disingenuous, this line of argumentation is pursued simply enough by producing the character data which precludes placing *H. sapiens *within Animalia, and I eagerly await such data. As human origins are neither my primary interest, nor any field in which I have more than the vaguest knowledge, I leave specific details of such matters to other individuals (namely Oolon) posting on this thread. I will note, however, a subtle shift in focus (the logical fallacy of shifting the goalposts). The original objections to the fossil record presented on this thread were that were no transitional forms of any kind (see the post by E. Tabara on the first page). When data were presented to refute such an assertion, it was ignored (as has been the majority if not all of the data advanced in defense of evolution in favor of argumentum ad hominem). Now, it would seem, the goalposts have been shifted to hominid phylogeny. Indeed we see a reflection of this in the language which Melchior uses. He makes great rhetorical flourish with the usage of the term proof, and yet formal proof are restricted to Logic and Mathematics and thus one must question why Melchior has requested such. It would seem that he has failed to understand that explanations in science consist at the most basic level of nomological-deductive explanations and historical narrative explanations, and thus consequently, has failed to understand how either is supported or refuted. Indeed, one must call into question given his emphasis on descriptive vocabulary to affix his use of the term “proof,” just what evidentiary standard Melchior feels acceptable. He has conspicuously failed to offer an explicit statement of an acceptable evidentiary standard, merely offering platitutdes and vauge generalities (“universally accepted,” e.g.). Until such time as Melchior has offered an evidentiary standard which he views as acceptable, it is difficult to construct a meaningful debate.
Last, but certainly not least, the creationist penchant on this thread for ignoring data presented in defense of evolutionary biology, with concomitant refusal to provide evidence refuting it, has continued admirably in Melchior’s post. Until such time as data is advanced to refute evolutionary biology which falls within the philosophical provenance of science, there is in actuality no debate occurring on this thread.

Vindex Urvogel

 

[Vindex_Urvogel]

JimO:

Vindex,

You are still missing my point. I do not reject biological evolution. I’ve stated that in every one of my posts. I reject atheism and insist that the physical and spiritual are intimately connected; therefore, I insist that discussion of one without the other is pointless.

You, on the other hand, appear to reject the spiritual and provide as little justification as you claim that I provide (even though I have stated clearly that I have no dispute with you over evolution itself).

I never stated that you or Oolon are “spiritually bereft”. You both, however, claim to be atheists and don’t want to discuss spiritual matters, even though that is the main purpose of this forum. If you’re an atheist and don’t want to even discuss the spiritual, what is that, if not spiriturally bereft?

Please provide the citation for the statement in which I have claimed to be an atheist. To address the main point of the above qouted segment, I will not discuss faith because the validity of evolutionary biology–what is being debated on this thread–is a question of biological science. Evolutionary biology can be falsified or verified only on the basis empirical data, not on faith or philosophical grounds. To insist that you assess the validity of evolution with anything but empirical data, is to state that only rhetorical objections can be addressed in opposition to evolution and the very point of the creationists here–that there is legitimate scientific cause to reject evolution–has been shown unsubstantiated.

By the way, I stated, “It is true that due because no one location has been likely under water (where deposition primarily occurs) throughout all of geologic history, there is no one location where rocks representing the entire geologic time scale are present.” I stand corrected in that the second half of my statement was technically incorrect. My point was that there is no one location where deposition has occurred continually through geologic history (as indicated in the first half of the statement). I was trying to explain a basic geologic principle to a non-geologist. I should have been more precise.

My biggest problem with Oolon and you is that you both make statements, such as “A geologist should know better.” which suggest an intellectual arrogance. I often see this in atheists who think that they are, by definition, intellectually superior to people of faith because they reject faith in God as some kind of superstition or character flaw. Your comments and those of Oolon have that tone.

Your statements, as you admit, were not precise and were misinterpreted on my part as a result. Had you actually been denying the existence of the entire geological column in the real world (as opposed to textbooks alone), my statement that a geologist should know better, would have been entirely correct. Any geologist who said such a thing, should know better. Your endless pontification on the sense of intellectual superiority we apparently display is either indicative of your own insecurity in the philosophical structure of your argument, or more likely argumentum ad hominem aimed at keeping the actual data supporting or refuting evolutionary biology from the discussion (one would assume because of the paucity of data to support creationism). I have every respect, both constitutional and personal, for people who are those of faith. I do not respect however, philosophically sloppy arguments or pseudoscience (i.e., creationism) masquerading as science.

Vindex Urvogel

 

[PhilVaz]

Okay, to sum up this whole thread as I see it so far…again I’m a “theistic evolutionist”

(1) One does not have to be an atheist to accept evolution, Catholicism and evolution are compatible (noted by Pius XII and JPII at least), given some philosophical restrictions on both evolution and our interpretations of Genesis (which all but the hardcore YEC’s would agree is not a science text).

(2) The beginning of the universe, and the origin of first life do seem to point to a creator or designer, or at least a non-natural cause (e.g. God) of some sort, and/or seem to pose problems for the atheist/naturalist/materialist at present, but nevertheless this is not evolution since evolution is what has happened once life is here (however it first got here).

(3) Evolution is well supported, both micro and macro, and while there are still many gaps in the fossil record, there are plenty of transitional forms, even at the species level, and chimps/humans have much in common (physically and genetically), and the best scientific explanation of the various “hominid fossils” that have been found is that humans and the great apes had a common ancestor several million years ago.

(4) Whether there was an Original Sin, a Fall, and death before that Fall are theological objections or difficulties that the Catholic or Christian need to work out, but they don’t affect the scientific evidence for evolution. The two (science and theology) do intersect, but science deals with the natural (methodological naturalism), while theology and revelation the supernatural, along with meaning and purpose.

(5) And please young-earthers in here, radiometric dating has been well tested in the laboratory for about 100 years, the age of the earth at 4.5 billion has been determined with precision since the early 1950s and tested and corroborated over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again with the thousands of radiometric dates being published from the old earth rocks, lunar rocks, and meteorites, by various methods and means (see Dalrymple’s The Age of the Earth). There’s no use arguing against an old earth with Genesis. I note again: creationist geologists before Darwin knew the earth was very old, they just didn’t know how old until radioactivity was discovered in the early 20th century.

I enjoy the (name removed by moderator)ut of the Internet Infidel regulars, I’ve read their creation-evolution board off and on for about a year. Great stuff. I don’t find them all that arrogant, they tend to stick with the science unless pushed by creationists. Maybe a couple more threads can be started on atheism and philosophy at the Catholic Answers board.

Phil P

 

[Chris_W]

Vindex Urvogel - I read your comments, and although they were a difficult read (makes me wonder if your intent is to actually provide useful information, or merely to sound so scientific and knowlegeable so as not to be questioned further), I think I understand your answer to Melchior. However, I think you missed the point: It was indicated earlier that there most certainly has been transitional life forms, and they were mentioned by name.
The objection to this assertion is that one cannot say conclusively that this is true. And so the challenge was made for someone to show that it is true.

Your own response to Melchior described hypotheses, and presumptions that ultimately ended with you indicating that what Melchior is asking for cannot be given.

You may have very good reasons the answer cannot be given…it sounds like you do, and what you said makes sense. However, that does not solve the problem. If you want the world to think that the claim has been conclusively substantiated, then you should be able to demonstrate how it is conclusively substantiated. Showing that it is possible is not the same thing as showing that it is true. Many things are possible.

 

[Chris_W]

PhilVaz:

And please young-earthers in here, radiometric dating has been well tested in the laboratory for about 100 years, the age of the earth at 4.5 billion has been determined with precision since the early 1950s and tested and corroborated over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again with the thousands of radiometric dates being published from the old earth rocks, lunar rocks, and meteorites, by various methods and means.
Phil P

Boy, that is good news. As of a couple months ago, there were so many web-sites disputing the credibilty of radiometric dating that I couldn’t possibly read them all. But wait, all those sites were posted after 1950…hmmmm. Perhaps all the scientists who disagree with you are unscientific and ignorant of the obvious truth? Yet their objections seem to make sense. How is an undecided person to know who to believe?

I am not seeking to rehash the arguments posed on all those sites, but to again make the point that you pose your position as so obvously true that someone would have to be blind not to see things your way. That doesn’t persuade me.

 

[Vindex_Urvogel]

Chris W:

Vindex Urvogel - I read your comments, and although they were a difficult read (makes me wonder if your intent is to actually provide useful information, or merely to sound so scientific and knowlegeable so as not to be questioned further), I think I understand your answer to Melchior. However, I think you missed the point: It was indicated earlier that there most certainly has been transitional life forms, and they were mentioned by name.
The objection to this assertion is that one cannot say conclusively that this is true. And so the challenge was made for someone to show that it is true.

Your own response to Melchior described hypotheses, and presumptions that ultimately ended with you indicating that what Melchior is asking for cannot be given.

You may have very good reasons the answer cannot be given…it sounds like you do, and what you said makes sense. However, that does not solve the problem. If you want the world to think that the claim has been conclusively substantiated, then you should be able to demonstrate how it is conclusively substantiated. Showing that it is possible is not the same thing as showing that it is true. Many things are possible.

Alas, the evils of intricate philosophy of science! I cannot undesrtand such abstruse things as phylogenetic inference and logic and thus reject them categorically! My answer is “difficult” only in that I have not sugar-coated reality in the form of a strawman fallacy but rather addressed the philosophical bankruptcy of Melchior’s response. What Melchior asked for–an orthogenic ancestor/descedant relationship is not scientific and not something a scientist (evolutionist or otherwise) would provide or even be able to if they wished to. I explained in detail why such statements are not science and if this is still in doubt would suggest re-reading the first post in response to Melchior. Melchior at best has not understood the logical structure of phylogenetic inference, or at worst, has deliberately asked one to demonstrate that which it is not possible to scientifically enumerate, which to the say the least is highly disingenuous. Systematists formulate sister-group hypotheses, not orthogenic ancestor/descendant statements; it’s just that simple. Your statements that I merely discussed the philosophical structure of Melchior’s response is exactly correct–that was my stated goal. Indeed, one can hardly discuss anything else because not a single creationist here has offered anything remotely resembling empirical data with which to question the validity of evolutionary biology!

In a rather confusing portion of your reply you state that there are transitional forms, but appear to go on to state that transitions from one level of organization to another have not been documented. At first glance this would seem to be Orwellian doublethink, since you appear to have admitted that morphological intermediates exist yet continue to deny that novel morphologies can arise via evolutionary processes. If I have misinterpreted your comments, I would ask that you place them within a more precise framework. Needless to say, if one admits that transitional forms exist, it stretches credulity to deny that novel morphologies can arise via evolutionary processes.

And last but not least, we return to the evidentiary standard, which as in Melchior’s post, herein remains undefined and without enumeration. It is most difficult to debate anything when an opponent’s evidentiary standard is so diffusely constructed so as to make it endlessly malleable. To make an evidentiary standard so vague that it’s goalposts can be continuously pushed back is a simple method of precluding any given hypothesis from falsification.

Vindex Urvogel

 

[PhilVaz]

ChrisW << Perhaps all the scientists who disagree with you are unscientific and ignorant of the obvious truth? Yet their objections seem to make sense. How is an undecided person to know who to believe? >>

There are no scientists working in the field of geochronology (measuring the age of rocks and the earth) that dispute the 4.5 billion year old age. All the sites and scientists you are referring to are creationist who have their mind made up already that Genesis must mean the earth is 10,000 years old or less. The professional geochronologists like Dalrymple have no axe to grind. There is no positive scientific evidence for a young earth, there is only a narrow interpretation of Genesis that forces a Catholic or Christian to that belief. All the creationist attempts to do is throw rocks at all of geology (to make a pun).

Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale

Young-Earth Arguments, a second look by Glenn Morton

Geochronology and creationists

Radiometric Dating, a Christian Perspective

These are all utterly compelling.

What the creationist does is this: you have 50 clocks in your house, some digital, some electric, grandfather, cuckoo, wrist watches, battery, all kinds of clocks. You wake up in the middle of the night, and 46 of them read 2:30 am, one reads 2:29 am, one reads 2:31 am, one reads 12 noon and is flashing, one reads 3:37 pm. Now what time is it? If you say “it is probably 2:30 am” then congratulations, you just agreed with 99.99% of all professional scientists that the earth is old, in fact 4.5 billion years old.

The creationist looks at the one reading 3:37 pm and says “see you do not know what time it is, and it might be 3:37 pm.” That is what is going on.

There is Robert Gentry who works with "polonium halos" you might find interesting, but other geologists have rejected his work. If you haven’t read Dalrymple, he is the place to start since he is acknowledged expert.

Phil P

 

[Chris_W]

Vindex Urvogel:

the principles of evolutionary research suggest that if related to each other at any level, two of these three taxa will cluster as sister groups allied on the basis of uniquely derived morphological (or molecular) characters not present in one of the other taxa.

(For clarification (sorry if my previous post was confusing), as it stands today, I do not acknowlege the existance of transitionary life forms).

I have re-read both Melchior and your posts and really am trying to understand. Perhaps over-simplifying, this is what I saw happen. Melchior asked for conlusive evidence of transitionary life forms. You replied with an explanation of why what he asked for isn’t possible. Hopefully we agree so far in this post.

Okay, here’s where you lose me. When I read the above quoted statement, I am immediately suspicious of the evidence you propose because you start your explanation with “the principles of evolutionary research suggest…”

A person who, like me, who doesn’t put confidence in the theory of evolution, stops reading for a second and thinks “are the principles of evolution, (whatever they may be), accepted worldwide?” Perhaps you can elaborate on these principles for me, because my assumption is that the principles you are referring to go something like this: If two animals share common attributes (i.e. the similarities between the human and ape genes) they must therefore be related in the evolutionary process, to which I would respond, not necessarily…this is an assumption on the part of the evolutionist.

If you care to explain in a way average folks can understand, please do so.

 

[Christian5]

Has anyone ever read C.S. Lewis’ “Mere Christiananity?” The last chapter deals with evolution and he compares it to Christiananity in such a beautiful way.

I used to be an atheist and now I’m a practicing Catholic. Life is beautiful! Terrible at times, but very beautiful. And the terror of it makes me fear God even more. Just look around at everything. I think it is foolish to say “there is no God.” And I know of evolution, I am not ignorant of it and I believe it. It’s AWESOME how the holy scriptures say “man’s knowledge will greatly increase” (the end times). Oh wow has it!

Although I do believe certain animals that evolutionists claim (without a dougt) are extinct MAY still be living from sightings and fossil evidence.

The historical evidence of the Bible is also remarkable. Anyone ever think about all of the apparations of Mother Mary? Or the Saints from the past? I’m sure the atheist would say “it’s all in your mind.” Well of course, what else could he say, unless they actually happen to him.

Praise the Lord!

 

[Vindex_Urvogel]

(For clarification (sorry if my previous post was confusing), as it stands today, I do not acknowlege the existance of transitionary life forms).

Then would care to enumerate why a form such as *Euparkeria capensis *or *Sinornithosaurus millenii, *or Jeholornis prima or *Archaeopteryx lithographica *or Confuciusornis sanctus are not transitional fossils? I refer you to my earlier post regarding this matter in response to E. Tabara.

I have re-read both Melchior and your posts and really am trying to understand. Perhaps over-simplifying, this is what I saw happen. Melchior asked for conlusive evidence of transitionary life forms. You replied with an explanation of why what he asked for isn’t possible. Hopefully we agree so far in this post.

This is not at all what happened. Melchior asked me to provide an orthogenic ancestor/descendant relationship, which is not scientific and I elaborated on why this was so. Melchior’s request for transitional fossils supporting a sister group relationship of humans with other hominids has already been provided by Oolon in his earlier posts. I was more concerned with the philosophical bankruptcy of asking for ancestor/descedant statements of relationship, which I am afraid to say, are simply not science. Sister group relationships are, and I explained the difference between the two at length.

Okay, here’s where you lose me. When I read the above quoted statement, I am immediately suspicious of the evidence you propose because you start your explanation with “the principles of evolutionary research suggest…”

A person who, like me, who doesn’t put confidence in the theory of evolution, stops reading for a second and thinks “are the principles of evolution, (whatever they may be), accepted worldwide?” Perhaps you can elaborate on these principles for me, because my assumption is that the principles you are referring to go something like this: If two animals share common attributes (i.e. the similarities between the human and ape genes) they must therefore be related in the evolutionary process, to which I would respond, not necessarily…this is an assumption on the part of the evolutionist.

If you care to explain in a way average folks can understand, please do so.

My statement you have quoted is a simple “if p, then q” statement. If evolutionary biology is correct, the principles thereof would suggest that we would see the three taxa listed, X, Y, and Z if they are related, cluster in such a way that two of these taxa share more recent common ancestry than the third taxa. If we see that these taxa are related, and they do indeed cluster in such a way, then evolutionary biology has been corroborated by the character data. If not, then the hypothesis used needs to be re-examined. You are attempting to state that my premise was the same as my conclusion, and this is simply not the case. It was rather an expression of the simplest logical statement that there is. To invoke an anti-evolutionary explanation for the observed character data by which we can cluster taxa in dichotomous sister-group relationships, such as the implicit “God did it,” is an ad hoc hypothesis to protect creationism from falsification. It is possible, but where is the evidence? And moreover, the most parsimonious interpretation of the evidence is that which requires the fewest ad hoc explanations attached thereto. As the pattern of taxa clustering we see in phylogenetic analyses is congruent with the pattern which evolutionary biology would predict, the most rational conclusion is that a major prediction of evolutionary biology has been upheld by the character data. To suggest otherwise is both special pleading and a violation of the basic Popperian philosophy that lies at the heart of modern scientific work. In other words, while it is possible that the most parsimonious explanation is wrong, it is neither conclusively demonstrated nor is it “clean” philosophy.

The principles of which I made mention, and which you seem to be unfamiliar with, are very basic, that clades share unique common ancestry. If clades share unique common ancestry in a sister-group relationship, then the character data will reveal as much when analyzed quantitatively. If not, then evolutionary biology’s principal postulate is incorrect. Unfortunately for creationists, the character data leaves them little room for comfort during analysis of all known clades.

Vindex Urvogel

 

[Vindex_Urvogel]

Christian5:

Although I do believe certain animals that evolutionists claim (without a dougt) are extinct MAY still be living from sightings and fossil evidence.

Praise the Lord!

What animals might these be?

Vindex Urvogel

 

[Chris_W]

PhilVaz:

There are no scientists working in the field of geochronology (measuring the age of rocks and the earth) that dispute the 4.5 billion year old age.

There are two possibilities with this statement. Either you are not nearly as informed as you portray yourself to be, or you are flat out making false statements. It took me all of 5 minutes on google to find professional geochronologists who absolutely dispute the 4.5 billion year old age.

Dalrymple was asked “Is it true that you do not know of any scientist who does not agree with you and your viewpoint and opinion as to the age of the earth and the fossils?”

He responded, “It depends on who you include in the word “scientist.” I think if you want to include people who categorize themselves as creation scientists, then that would not be a true statement.”

…Hmmmm.

PhilVaz:

The professional geochronologists like Dalrymple have no axe to grind.

I think we see pretty clearly how unbiased both you and Dalrymple are.

PhilVaz:

There is no positive scientific evidence for a young earth.

Interesting assertion. This sounds an aweful lot like the challenge of Melchior to the evolutionists in this thread…to which of course they are outraged he would ask for such a thing.

Furthermore, wasn’t it you who accused me of being scientifically illiterate because I said the same thing about the theory evolution? You know, the “science can’t prove” response I received? I’ll have to scroll back and see if it was you who said that.

PhilVaz:

What the creationist does is this: you have 50 clocks in your house, some digital, some electric, grandfather, cuckoo, wrist watches, battery, all kinds of clocks. You wake up in the middle of the night, and 46 of them read 2:30 am, one reads 2:29 am, one reads 2:31 am, one reads 12 noon and is flashing, one reads 3:37 pm. Now what time is it? If you say “it is probably 2:30 am” then congratulations, you just agreed with 99.99% of all professional scientists that the earth is old, in fact 4.5 billion years old.

The creationist looks at the one reading 3:37 pm and says “see you do not know what time it is, and it might be 3:37 pm.” That is what is going on.

I resent that analagy. I say it would be a better description to say a few clocks read 2:30, some others read 3:30 and the rest were not able to be seen. The evolutionist picks 2:30 and insists there can be no other way and concludes that anyone who thinks it is 3:30 must be an idiot.

PhilVaz:

There is Robert Gentry who works with "polonium halos" you might find interesting, but other geologists have rejected his work. If you haven’t read Dalrymple, he is the place to start since he is acknowledged expert.

Gentry is interesting. Dalrymple is suspect because of his obvious arrogance and narrow mindedness.

 

[Chris_W]

Vindex - Thank you for the polite response (quite refreshing on this thread I need to digest what you said. Your explanation makes much more sense, and although it does not rule out thepossibility of another explanation, I cannot dispute that it seems to corroborate the premise that led to the test.

Enough for me for one night.

 

[Vindex_Urvogel]

Chris W:

Dalrymple was asked “Is it true that you do not know of any scientist who does not agree with you and your viewpoint and opinion as to the age of the earth and the fossils?”

He responded, “It depends on who you include in the word “scientist.” I think if you want to include people who categorize themselves as creation scientists, then that would not be a true statement.”

…Hmmmm.

If one’s work does not meet the minimum philosophical requirements of science, it follows that one is not practicing science. Thus, should such a person wish to call himself a scientist, they may do so, but reality will dispute them.

Vindex Urvogel

 

[vrummage]

I appreciate the heartfelt conviction evidenced in the posts on this thread for both the evolutionist and creationist viewpoint but after reading some of the posts I felt compelled to make some clarifications. We are not talking about two mutually exclusive theories of origins. The real issue is Did God use Evolution as part of the creative process? Allow me to quote Fr. Rumble:

“Creation is not a theory. It is a fact revealed by God. Evolution is a fact within certain restricted spheres, but a mere theory when made of universal application. We have to admit evolution in knowledge, or in growth from babyhood to manhood. As a universal theory, however, evolution from nothing is absurd. Yet granted that God created something, it is quite possible that God allowed His original creation with the power to evolve. Did He create vegetables and animals separately, or did He create a vast rotating nebula and give it the power to evolve into various forms of being and life? The latter idea has never been proved. It is a matter of speculation, with no certainty attached to it, save that science quite discredits spontaneous generation of life. Did man himself evolve from lower living beings? It is absolutely certain that his soul did not.The soul is an intelligent spirit, and an intelligent spirit can not evolve from matter. Moreover, God has revealed that the soul is created immediately by Himself. Did man’s body evolve from lower animals, God creating the rational soul when some lower animal had sufficiently evolved towards manhood? Despite conjectures in favor of this notion, the evidence is against it. The missing link is still missing, and reason discounts the probability that a purely animal soul could develop an animal body beyond its own powers, lifting it to the higher stage needed for a rational soul.”

Radio Replies Vol. 1 q. 646

I do not ascribe to the belief that man has descended from lower forms of life. Vast numbers of fossils identical to creatures alive today have been found, but not a trace of transitional forms. The fossil record is devoid of “missing links” grading up from simple to more complex creatures. Even those thought to be among the oldest are very complex in composition, with no ancestors leading up to them.
Macroevolutionary models are also directly contradicted by the second law of thermodynamics (entropy) which states that every system left to its own devices always tends to move from order to disorder, its energy tending to be transformed into lower levels of availability, finally reaching a state of complete randomness and unavailability for further work. Evolution theory requires a universal principle of upward change; the entropy law is a universal law of downward change. The latter has been proved to apply in all systems tested so far; the former cannot even be tested scientifically.

“…Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?” 1 Cor. 1:20