Creation or Evolution

[The_Barbarian]

Many modern philosophers of science use the terms methodological naturalism or scientific naturalism to refer to the methodological assumption that observable effects in nature are best explainable only by natural causes.

And that is the same assumption as philosophical naturalism,as found in the writings of Francis Bacon and Thomas Browne.

No. Philosophical naturalism asserts that nature is all there is. Quite a different claim. Bacon, BTW, was not a philosophical naturalist, which pretty much disposes of your claim.

RELIGION being the chief band of human society, it is a happy thing when itself is well contained within the true band of unity. The quarrels and divisions about religion were evils unknown to the heathen. The reason was because the religion of the heathen consisted rather in rites and ceremonies than in any constant belief. For you may imagine what kind of faith theirs was, when the chief doctors and fathers of their church were the poets. But the true God hath this attribute, that he is a jealous God; and therefore his worship and religion will endure no mixture nor partner. We shall therefore speak a few words concerning the unity of the church; what are the fruits thereof; what the bounds; and what the means.
bartleby.com/3/1/3.html

Methodological naturalism can be contrasted with the ontological naturalism or metaphysical naturalism, which refers to the metaphysical belief that the natural world (including the universe) is all that exists and, therefore, nothing supernatural exists.

I highlighted the differences so you could find them easier. Methodological naturalism limits itself to the physical universe without denying the existence of the supernatural.

Philosophical naturalism doesn’t necessarily deny the existence of the supernatural either.

In essence, it does:
Naturalism does not necessarily claim that phenomena or hypotheses commonly labeled as supernatural do not exist or are wrong, but insists that all phenomena and hypotheses can be studied by the same methods and therefore anything considered supernatural is either nonexistent or not inherently different from natural phenomena or hypotheses.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy

Barbarian observes:
Nope. Methodological naturalism is just a way of investigating nature, without taking any stand on the supernatural.

That’s a silly statement,

It’s just the truth. The truth matters, Anthony. It should matter to you, too.

Barbarian observes:
Ontological naturalism is the idea that nature is all there is. If you can’t get this, you’ll never understand science.

You still don’t get the fact that I’m not talking about the belief that nature is all there is.

If you’re talking about philosophical naturalism, you are.

You were the one who brought up ontological naturalism,not me.
I was talking about the naturalism of the early experimental scientists,

As you see above, they weren’t philosophical naturalists.

(more denial of the meaning of “macroevolution”)

And that won’t help you; if you refuse to use terms as scientists use them, you’ll be constantly misunderstood.

 

[The_Barbarian]

I think you have it reversed. Science is only one form of reason, there are others.

Funny, you still resist the notion that science can’t address the supernatual; I have to repeatedly remind you of this.

I hope you haven’t fallen for the mistaken notion that science somehow supersedes the Word of God.

I have to keep reminding you of this fact.

Or for the idea “that truth cannot contradict truth” goes only in one direction and not both directions.

Truth is truth, and truth can’t contradict truth in any manner. If you don’t believe this, than the teaching of the Church isn’t accessible to you.

 

[edwest2]

The teachings of the Church come first for me. Science is, at best, a tool. It is not separate from reality. But it would be false to describe reality only with science.

I suggest you re-read Cardinal Schoenborn’s Op-Ed in the New York Times. You appear to have fallen for an ideology.

Peace,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

The teachings of the Church come first for me.

I see you claim that. But then you refuse to accept the Church’s teaching on evolution.

Science is, at best, a tool.

Which is what we’ve been telling you for a long time, Ed.

But it would be false to describe reality only with science.

Which is what I’ve pointed out to you over many posts.

I suggest you re-read Cardinal Schoenborn’s Op-Ed in the New York Times.

I doubt very much if the Cardinal denies the teaching of the Church.

You appear to have fallen for an ideology.

It’s called “Christianity.”

 

[edwest2]

I think you are mistaken. I agree with what Cardinal Schoenborn wrote:

nytimes.com/2005/07/07/opinion/07schonborn.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

And it is my conviction, based on his statements, that the Church is defending reason, God derived reason itself in this new era of atheism. An era that, as I just read on another forum, allows that man is nothing more than a product of genetics and environment, when it is clear that he was designed.

Peace,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

The Cardinal has since backed off on a good deal of that, clarifying that he does not disagree with the teaching of the Church.

Shoenborn’s clarification of his thinking seems to have outraged some of the more radical IDers:

**My review of Christoph, Cardinal Schoenborn’s attempt to tiptoe around the intelligent design controversy
**
uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/my-review-of-christoph-cardinal-schoenborns-attempt-to-tiptoe-around-the-intelligent-design-controversy/

I haven’t seen Denyse O’Leary so upset since her “The Smithsonian supports ID” scam fell apart.

Meantime, Shoenborn turns out to agree with the Pope after all. From his website:

**The Catholic position on “creationism” is clear. Saint Thomas Aquinas says that one should “not try to defend the Christian faith with arguments that make it ridiculous, because they are in obvious contradiction with reason”. It is nonsense to maintain that the world is only six thousand years old. An attempt to prove such a notion scientifically means provoking what Saint Thomas calls the irrisio infidelium, the mockery of unbelievers. Exposing the faith to mockery with false arguments of this kind is not right; indeed, it is explicitly to be rejected. Let that be enough on the subject of “creationism” and “fundamentalism”. **
ignatius.com/chanceorpurpose/

 

[hecd2]

I was referrring to the text in the preamble of the Declaration of Independence (I corrected that later):

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

This passage is based on traditional Catholic theology. Mankind is dependent on God, and God has created all men equal with the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

You are wrong on two counts. You are wrong that the passage is based on traditional Catholic theology and you are wrong that Catholic theology has anything to say about the right of people to Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, at least not in the sense intended here.

The passage is based on the Enlightenment idea of rights of man, as I have pointed out several times on this thread. Since at least two of the five authors of the Declaration (John Adams and Thomas Jefferson) were Unitarians (with Jefferson being strongly opposed to organised Christian religion), and two (Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin) were deists, it is quite unreasonable to claim that this document was based on traditional Catholic theology. In fact, it takes a profound misunderstanding of history to make such a claim.

Again, it was a fairly simple point. Mankind is endowed by their Creator with rights. .

Strange then, that it took 1700 years in the West during which most states were unremittingly Christian, and a bunch of atheists, deists and freethinkers to fight for the rights of man that we all take for granted today.

I recommend that you read a good book on the emergence of the concepts of the Rights of Man from the Enlightenment in the 17th , 18th and 19th centuries.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Thing]

You are wrong on two counts. You are wrong that the passage is based on traditional Catholic theology and you are wrong that Catholic theology has anything to say about the right of people to Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, at least not in the sense intended here.

Jefferson completed a draft in consultation with other committee members, drawing heavily on George Mason’s draft of the Virginia Declaration of Rights,…

Virginia Declaration of Rights.
…On this day in 1776, the Virginia Assembly unanimously adopted George Mason’s Declaration of Rights, which guaranteed, among other things, the equal right to “life, liberty and property” (though it did little for the slaves that these same men kept in bondage). Mason’s Declaration of Rights has long been hailed as the the front runner to the Bill or Rights, which was later amended to the federal constitution.

Mason’s main source of inspiration came from the English Bill of Rights (1689), which guaranteed certain rights – the right to petition, bear arms, protection from cruel and unusual punishment being among them – to the English citizenry. This Bill of Rights, which essentially served as a social contract of sorts between the English people and William of Orange and Mary prior to their ascension to the English throne, was hailed as one of the greatest manifestations of individual liberty in the western world. …

English Bill of Rights 1689.
…An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown;
Whereas the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons assembled at Westminster, lawfully, fully and freely representing all the estates of the people of this realm, did upon the thirteenth day of February in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred eighty-eight present unto their Majesties, then called and known by the names and style of William and Mary, prince and princess of Orange, being present in their proper persons, a certain declaration in writing made by the said Lords and Commons in the words following, viz.: and so on and so on…

…Mary II (30 April 1662 – 28 December 1694) reigned as Queen of England and Ireland from 13 February 1689, and as Queen of Scots (as Mary II) from 11 April 1689 until her death. Mary, a Protestant, came to the thrones following the Glorious Revolution, which resulted in the deposition of her Roman Catholic father, James II…

So you see, there is a Roman Catholic theology behind it after all…

 

[wildleafblower]

Strange then, that it took 1700 years in the West during which most states were unremittingly Christian, and a bunch of atheists, deists and freethinkers to fight for the rights of man that we all take for granted today.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Rebel call: "*When the last dutiful & humble petition from Congress received no other Answer than declaring us Rebels, and out of the King’s protection, I from that Moment look’d forward to a Revolution & Independence, as the only means of Salvation; and will risque the last Penny of my Fortune, & the last Drop of my Blood upon the Issue. * George Mason, October 2, 1978.

A tad off topic - -God willing I returned to announce I’m* PROUD *to be a American WOMAN ! I love my country and the rest of the world that allows freedom.

THE CHARTERS OF FREEDOM include The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, and The Bill of Rights.

The United States Government has a wonderful collection about Declaration of Independence. Here are a few points of interest:

"In 1761, fifteen years before the United States of America burst onto the world stage with the Declaration of Independence, the American colonists were loyal British subjects who celebrated the coronation of their new King, George III. The colonies that stretched from present-day Maine to Georgia were distinctly English in character although they had been settled by Scots, Welsh, Irish, Dutch, Swedes, Finns, Africans, French, Germans, and Swiss, as well as English.

“As English men and women, the American colonists were heirs to the thirteenth-century English document, the Magna Carta, which established the principles that no one is above the law (not even the King), and that no one can take away certain rights. So in 1763, when the King began to assert his authority over the colonies to make them share the cost of the Seven Years’ War England had just fought and won, the English colonists protested by invoking their rights as free men and loyal subjects. It was only after a decade of repeated efforts on the part of the colonists to defend their rights that they resorted to armed conflict and, eventually, to the unthinkable–separation from the motherland.”
archives.gov/exhibits/charters/charters_of_freedom_2.html

Loading…

www.archives.gov

"The sole governing authority presiding over the tumultuous events of the American Revolution between 1774 and 1789 was a body known as** Congress**. With no power to regulate commerce or lay taxes, and with little ability to enforce any of its decisions, this group, representing the thirteen colonies, declared independence, conducted a war that defeated one of the greatest military powers of its day, and invented a new political entity that became a sovereign independent nation. Its members pondered everything from the rightness of independence to the number of flints needed by the armies–sometimes with the enemy not far from their doorstep. Asserting their rights, they found themselves labeled as traitors.

“The fifty-four men who composed the First Continental Congress represented different interests, religions, and regions; they held conflicting opinions as to how best restore their rights. Most did not know each other; some did not like each other. With no history of successful cooperation, they struggled to overcome their differences and, without any way of knowing if the future held success or nooses for them all, they started down a long and perilous road toward independence.”
archives.gov/exhibits/charters/charters_of_freedom_2.html

Loading…

www.archives.gov

**Chronology Of Events: **
June 7, 1776 to January 18, 1777
1776
June 7 – Congress, meeting in Philadelphia, receives Richard Henry Lee’s resolution urging Congress to declare independence.
June 11 – Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, and Robert R. Livingston appointed to a committee to draft a declaration of independence. American army retreats to Lake Champlain from Canada.
June 12 - 27 – Jefferson, at the request of the committee, drafts a declaration, of which only a fragment exists. Jefferson’s clean, or “fair” copy, the “original Rough draught,” is reviewed by the committee. Both documents are in the manuscript collections of the Library of Congress.
June 28 – A fair copy of the committee draft of the Declaration of Independence is read in Congress.
July 1 - 4 – **Congress debates and revises the Declaration of Independence. **
July 2 – Congress declares independence as the British fleet and army arrive at New York.
July 4 – **Congress adopts the Declaration of Independence in the morning of a bright, sunny, but cool Philadelphia day. John Dunlap prints the Declaration of Independence. These prints are now called “Dunlap Broadsides.” Twenty-four copies are known to exist, two of which are in the Library of Congress. One of these was Washington’s personal copy. **
July 5 – John Hancock, president of the Continental Congress, dispatches the first of Dunlap’s broadsides of the Declaration of Independence to the legislatures of New Jersey and Delaware.
July 6 – Pennsylvania Evening Post of July 6 prints the first newspaper rendition of the Declaration of Independence.
July 8 – The first public reading of the Declaration is in Philadelphia.
July 9 – Washington orders that the Declaration of Independence be read before the American army in New York – from his personal copy of the “Dunlap Broadside.”
July 19 – Congress orders the Declaration of Independence engrossed (officially inscribed) and signed by members.
August 2 – Delegates begin to sign engrossed copy of the Declaration of Independence. A large British reinforcement arrives at New York after being repelled at Charleston, S.C.
1777
January 18 – Congress, now sitting in Baltimore, Maryland, orders that signed copies of the Declaration of Independence printed by Mary Katherine Goddard of Baltimore be sent to the states.
loc.gov/exhibits/declara/declara2.html
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/declara/declara2.html

Jefferson’s “original Rough draught” of the Declaration of Independence, written in June 1776, including all the changes made later by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and other members of the committee, and by Congress.
The “original Rough draught” of the Declaration of Independence, one of the great milestones in American history, shows the evolution of the text from the initial composition draft by Jefferson to the final text adopted by Congress on the morning of July 4, 1776. Jefferson himself indicated some of the alterations made by Adams and Franklin.
Late in life Jefferson endorsed this document: “Independance. Declaration of original Rough draught.”"
loc.gov/exhibits/declara/declara4.html
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/declara/declara4.html

 

[hecd2]

J

So you see, there is a Roman Catholic theology behind it after all…

Ah yes - that’s good. I hadn’t thought of it that way.

Let’s see, the Roman Catholic link is that the great uncle of the Declaration of Independence via the Virginia Declaration of Rights, the English Bill of Rights of 1689, came about as a result of the deposing of the last Catholic monarch in Britain, the abolition of the notion of the Divine Right of Kings and the establishment of people’s rights and the limitation of the power of the monarchy that exists to this day. Nice one.

Alec

 

[hecd2]

To Alec,

See this document. Read Part 69:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

The Catholic Church tells me, no divine providence, no evolution. It’s clear, it’s simple. That’s what I believe. And by the way, there is no scientific paper or document that attributes any role to God. That is and will continue to be the whole reason for the debate. For Catholics, God’s involvement is critical.

God bless,
Ed

I am sorry, I must be missing something. Why do you think that this document could be of any interest or significance to me?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

Alec, I and others are trying our best to be in full communion as living witnesses to the love and truth which Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church would uphold.
.

I am certainly not in full communion with the Church, nor trying to be so - in fact, I am not in communion with Her at all. I do not like my beliefs being the subject of discussion, so I will set them out, hopefully, once and for all. I am an agnostic, who admits the possibility of a Prime Mover in a deistic sense, but I do not believe in the existence of a personal God who intervenes in the affairs of the Universe, and I certainly do not believe in the doctrine of the Church; in that respect I am an atheist, having, after protracted and painful consideration, rejected the beliefs of the Catholic faith in which I was raised.

I do not like being mis-characterised, nor do I need any support from others. I think that I am capable of standing up for myself. I would rather that my belief was not the topic for debate here, and would much prefer it if other posters did not make unreasonable claims for my scientific ability or false claims for my beliefs.

Alec

 

[wildleafblower]

I am certainly not in full communion with the Church, nor trying to be so - in fact, I am not in communion with Her at all.

Hi Alec

You are referring to my comment, “Alec, I and others are trying our best to be in full communion as living witnesses to the love and truth which Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church would uphold.” What’s the problem? Why are you upset? The definition I was using for communion means, “sharing” in Webster’s dictionary and of course we attempt to do this with love and truth in our postings which Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church would uphold. I’ve made that particular statement before which you trailed behind. Why are you now contesting it? You never contested it before:

Topic: The CC on Evolution: A Different Thread, I Hope
(Msg. 209))I do think that Alec, Tim, I and others on Catholic.com are trying our best to be in full communion as living witnesses to the love and truth which Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church would uphold.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2686246#post2686246
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2686246#post2686246

Topic: What are your thoughts on The Golden Compass?(Msg. 92) Alec, I and others are trying our best to be in full communion as living witnesses to the love and truth which Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church would uphold.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2944987#post2944987
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2944987#post2944987

I do not like my beliefs being the subject of discussion, so I will set them out, hopefully, once and for all. I am an agnostic, who admits the possibility of a Prime Mover in a deistic sense, but I do not believe in the existence of a personal God who intervenes in the affairs of the Universe, and I certainly do not believe in the doctrine of the Church; in that respect I am an atheist, having, after protracted and painful consideration, rejected the beliefs of the Catholic faith in which I was raised.

Alec, I think you’re sharing the news with other people not me because you’ve already told me a long time ago that you’re agnostic and what your feelings are about the Church. It doesn’t alter the fact that you did give me permission to believe in God for you and I always will. This I hold dear to my heart. You should know by now that you are dearly loved by many here, including myself. I think there are a lot of people that don’t like their beliefs being a subject of discussion. Sometimes my beliefs seem to hang as garments on a clothesline for the world to see. I don’t care being me. Now as far as you being an atheist, you’ve already publicly mentioned it before which ain’t no big deal you* being *you, knowing in my heart and mind that God loves you, recognizing that you may not have a problem with God loving you:

**Topic: Dennett; Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon **
(msg. 1) Those of us, like me, who are atheists, ought to remember that whatever powerful evolutionary, anthropological and social forces shape religious belief also apply to us, and that we do not stand above our evolutionary history any more easily, comfortably or surely than do believers.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1290566#post1290566
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1290566#post1290566

I do not like being mis-characterised, nor do I need any support from others. I think that I am capable of standing up for myself.

I’m sorry if you thought you were being mis-characterised. I don’t think you were being mis-characterised. Quite frankly, I think you might have been having a bad hair day. Furthermore, there isn’t a person alive that doesn’t need support from others though I fully acknowledge that you are capable as an adult to defend your right to express yourself. Don’t you think that team effort is important?

I would rather that my belief was not the topic for debate here, and would much prefer it if other posters did not make unreasonable claims for my scientific ability or false claims for my beliefs.
Alec

I totally agree! The blessing is the door was opened and the world caught a glimse of your sensitive side Alec. Cheerio ~ I hope you have a nice day. Keep a smile on your face.

 

[Bruno_Schulz]

I think that I am capable of standing up for myself
Alec

What you thought as a child, is nonsence today to you.
Just imagine, that in 100 years, it’s nonsense to you what you think today.

And finally: Do you really think, you would be able to stand up for yourself before God (who’s existence you doubt, but don’t know).
Of course, Agnostics are cleverer than all Prophets before Jesus, Jesus himself, and the Church for 2000 years.
So: Sorry - of course you can stand up

CU in 100 years

 

[Bruno_Schulz]

**
here you finally see the real truth!
vimeo.com/819787
**

 

[anthony022071]

[The Barbarian]

No, it’s an observed fact.

Since it has not happened,it cannot be an observed fact.

The gulls at the extremities of this species cannot reproduce with each other.

They can’t reproduce with each other for geographical reasons,not genetic reasons.

The only way for gene transfer to occur is by intermediate populations. If they were to die out, these would become two separate species.

That doesn’t follow. Lack of gene flow between two geographically isolated populations does not amount to speciation. True speciation is the result of a genetic barrier,not a geographic barrier. If two geographically isolated populations happen to meet each other again and they reproduce together,then they are not distinct species.

That’s also an observed fact. Some thousands of years ago, a number of kaibab squirrels got isolated on one side of the Grand Canyon away from the rest of the population. The two populations increasingly evolved away from each other, and are now incipient species, or perhaps have already become separate species.

If they can still reproduce together,even very partially,then they are of the same species.

Sort of like humans are still primates.

Incapable of breeding with other primates. No common descent,just a common category that only scientists find useful.

The point is that macroevolution would produce two species where the was formerly one.

Macro-evolution is large-scale evolution. There’s nothing large-scale about the examples you give. And in regard to the gulls,the predicted speciation has not even occurred.

No, that’s an error. Founder effect greatly increases the likelihood of speciation, since it will almost always involve a different allele frequency than a larger population.

**As a result of the loss of genetic variation, the new population may be distinctively different, both genetically and phenotypically, from the parent population from which it is derived. In extreme cases, the founder effect is thought to lead to the speciation and subsequent evolution of new species. **
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founder_effect

Again,speculation. Scientists think that it leads to the evolution of new species,but they have never observed this. Apparently it’s the thought that counts.

Founders have much less genetic variation than the original population.
That means the new colony will have much less capability for speciation than the original population.

 

[anthony022071]

[The Barbarian]

The Cardinal has since backed off on a good deal of that, clarifying that he does not disagree with the teaching of the Church.

Of course he does not disagree with the teaching of the Church. His views are in line with the Church’s document on Creation,which are not what you suppose. He refers to the same mistake that you make when you refer to that document.

< In an unfortunate new twist on this old controversy, neo-Darwinists recently have sought to portray our new pope, Benedict XVI, as a satisfied evolutionist. They have quoted a sentence about common ancestry from a 2004 document of the International Theological Commission, pointed out that Benedict was at the time head of the commission, and concluded that the Catholic Church has no problem with the notion of “evolution” as used by mainstream biologists - that is, synonymous with neo-Darwinism.

The commission’s document, however, reaffirms the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church about the reality of design in nature. Commenting on the widespread abuse of John Paul’s 1996 letter on evolution, the commission cautions that “the letter cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.”

Furthermore, according to the commission, “An unguided evolutionary process - one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence - simply cannot exist.” >

Now what theory of evolution is not materialist? What theory of evolution does not explicitly deny to God a truly causal role in the development of life? What form of methodological naturalism does not explicitly deny supernatural causes?

Meantime, Shoenborn turns out to agree with the Pope after all. From his website:

**The Catholic position on “creationism” is clear. Saint Thomas Aquinas says that one should “not try to defend the Christian faith with arguments that make it ridiculous, because they are in obvious contradiction with reason”. It is nonsense to maintain that the world is only six thousand years old. An attempt to prove such a notion scientifically means provoking what Saint Thomas calls the irrisio infidelium, the mockery of unbelievers. Exposing the faith to mockery with false arguments of this kind is not right; indeed, it is explicitly to be rejected. Let that be enough on the
subject of “creationism” and “fundamentalism”. **
ignatius.com/chanceorpurpose/

He does not say anything about the theory of evolution here.

 

[anthony022071]

sandwalk.blogspot.com/2007/06/evolutionary-biologists-flunk-religion.html

< Our study was the first poll to focus solely on eminent evolutionists and their views of religion. As a dissertation project, one of us (Graffin) prepared and sent a detailed questionnaire on evolution and religion to 271 professional evolutionary scientists elected to membership in 28 honorific national academies around the world, and 149 (55 percent) answered the questionnaire. All of them listed evolution (specifically organismic), phylogenetics, population biology/genetics, paleontology/paleoecology/paleobiology, systematics, organismal adaptation or fitness as at least one of their research interests. Graffin also interviewed 12 prestigious evolutionists from the sample group on the relation between modern evolutionary biology and religion.

…Perhaps the most revealing question in the poll asked the respondent to choose the letter that most closely represented where her views belonged on a ternary diagram. The great majority of the evolutionists polled (78 percent) chose A, billing themselves as pure naturalists. Only two out of 149 described themselves as full theists (F), two as more theist than naturalist (D) and three as theistic naturalists (B). Taken together, the advocacy of any degree of theism is the lowest percentage measured in any poll of biologists’ beliefs so far (4.7 percent). >

sandwalk.blogspot.com/2008/04/example-of-framing-by-matt-nisbet.html?showComment=1208470560000

 

[rossum]

Since it has not happened,it cannot be an observed fact.

I live in the UK. Here we have both ends of the circumpolar ring species: Herring Gulls and Black Backed Gulls. They do not interbreed and are separate species. However, as you travel round the pole through Greenland, Canada, Alaska, Siberia and Northern Scandinavia you can find gradually changing populations of interbreeding gulls than link these two species. It has happened and it is an observed fact.

As an aside, you are behind the latest creationist thinking. For example:Informed creationists have long pointed out that the biblical model of earth history would not only allow for the possibility of one species splitting into several (without the addition of new information, thus not ‘evolution’ as commonly understood), but would actually require that it must have happened much faster than evolutionists would expect. The thousands of vertebrate species on the Ark emerged into a world with large numbers of empty ecological niches, often as varied as the two worlds of our mosquito example here. They must have split many times into new species in the first few centuries thereafter, as the bear population, for example, gave rise to polar bears, grizzlies, giant pandas and more. The observations on these underground mosquitoes are thus exciting news.

Source: Brisk Biters

They can’t reproduce with each other for geographical reasons,not genetic reasons.

Please do yourself a favour and do some research before posting incorrect information. As I said, I live in the UK and we have both Herring Gulls and Black Backed Gulls. The reason a “ring species” is called a “ring species” is bacause it forms a ring - both ends meet. See:


The gull on the left is a Black Backed Gull, in the middle is a Herring Gull and on the right is a Yellow Legged Gull. Posting incorrect information will only weaken your arguments. Better to invest more time in research before posting.

That doesn’t follow. Lack of gene flow between two geographically isolated populations does not amount to speciation. True speciation is the result of a genetic barrier,not a geographic barrier. If two geographically isolated populations happen to meet each other again and they reproduce together,then they are not distinct species.

Geographic isolation may in time lead to genetic speciation. Minor changes in one of the two geographically isolated populations, for example a change in the timing of the breeding season, would result in an inability to interbreed when the populations merged.

If they can still reproduce together,even very partially,then they are of the same species.

The Barbarian said “incipient species”, which is correct. Speciation is a continuum from full interbreding to partial interbreeding with sterile males (ligers and tigons) to sterile hybrids (mules) to no interbreeding. Are you saying that lions and tigers are the same species? Are horses and donkeys the same species? Both those pairs of species can partially interbreed.

Incapable of breeding with other primates.

Ants cannot breed with beetles, yet both are members of the insects (Insecta). Primate is a far wider category than species.

Macro-evolution is large-scale evolution. There’s nothing large-scale about the examples you give. And in regard to the gulls,the predicted speciation has not even occurred.

Macro-evolution is defined as speciations at or above the level of species. The Answer in Genesis article I referenced above contained one example; there are many more. Creationists need to have macro-evolution (i.e. speciation) in order to fit all the animals onto Noah’s Ark.

You are wrong about the gulls, as I have pointed out.

rossum

 

[Bruno_Schulz]

The ultimate truth is that there is no Ultimate Truth.

You are wrong Dear
there is an ultimate truth
to be red in the bible
precondition of course is
to read by heart - not just brain

Why is that so?
Because brain tells us: Things are such and such! No question.
Heart tells us, Yes things are such, - but…

This “but” is all the difference from living as any creature (cat or dog or cow or whale) to the living of the created human, loved by God.