Evolution and Creationism

[Freddy]

Hume:

The line between micro and macro is so arbitrary as to be difficult actually Define.

The line is demarked by an imagined speciation event and, yes, I too have found the definition of species to be ambiguous. That definition maybe difficult but it is also necessary.

Buffalo has the answer.

He accepts that speciation occurs (hence, as per your comment above, macroeveolution has taken place marked by a speciation event). And how do we know what this speciation event is? Because, he constantly tells us, the new species cannot breed with the original one.

Between the two of you I think we’ve reached agreement.

QED?

 

[DictatorCzar]

Science can’t prove God because science is the study of the physical world but God is not physical. We as Christians believe that God is outside of our world or outside dimension. We can’t prove something that’s not physical with physical knowledge. It’s just belief, it’s a big gamble. Some people just look at the historicity of different religions.

 

[DictatorCzar]

The 3rd temple would be rebuilt but the 1000 years of peace thing is not known. Some believe the world would all be in Catholic rule, or Jesus would just come and there would be peace on earth. No one knows, unless it just happens.

 

[DictatorCzar]

I read through lots of it. We would never know the true answer of Macro evolution.

 

[DictatorCzar]

Lots of weird turns of events in this forum. From we don’t know, to scientific debates, to philosophical debates, to more scientific debates and other Mumble jumbo. Maybe we should talk about the existence of God with evolution, and the origins of everything(universe, earth, us).

 

[DictatorCzar]

The existence of God is more of a philosophical debate than a scientific argument because you can’t prove or disprove him. We probably have to make an entire study of non physical properties(which might exist).

 

[o_mlly]

The list you gave wasn’t meant to prove speciation and you didn’t post it to do that or to refute that. This list is meant as an accepted set of assumptions for using cladistics. Which was the very reason you posted it - trying to show that the assumptions were invalid.

But as you have been shown, the assumptions even apply to the most simple of examples - you and your family.

So to use your eye colour example, both my kids have different eye colours to me. And my grandson is different to my daughter’s. So there has been a change in characteristics in my lineage over time. There are other examples but only one is needed. So we can tick that box.

Do you want to discuss the others or are you going to accept that the assumptions are valid?

But what you are now saying is that you refute every single basis for evolution (covering a gigantic amount of evidence over many different aspects of scientific endeavour - like cladistics which you seem not to either accept or understand) and when you are asked for your alternative, we get…a shoulder shrug.

You have literally no idea how the process has produced what we have now but you feel quite confident in saying that everyone else is wrong.

At least Buff has an answer: God did it when He created all the kinds all at once a few thousand years ago. But I guess that’s a bit too ‘fundamentalist’ for you. You don’t mind sharing the platform with him and Ed when they try to deny evolution, but when it comes to explaining how they believe it happened you shuffle of the dias and hope no-one notices your absence.

Are you spiking that Kool-Aid you’ve been drinking? Looks like you’ve once again slid into rant mode. The posts above are incoherent. Get back to me when you can muster a sober reply.

 

[Noose001]

Evolution can’t be true. Main reasons it is not true:

1. Life comes from life; no matter how far back one goes, there’s no way life came out of non-life.
2. Human language(s); perhaps this is the most damning evidence against evolution.
   I’d simply define human language as words with specific pronunciation but most importantly, specific meaning(s) known to those who use the words to communicate. One can only acquire the meaning of words by learning from knowledgeable external sources. IOW, no one can speak a language unless they learn a language, no matter how far back one goes, meanings of words are acquired externally from knowledgeable sources.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

The list you gave wasn’t meant to prove speciation and you didn’t post it to do that or to refute that. This list is meant as an accepted set of assumptions for using cladistics. Which was the very reason you posted it - trying to show that the assumptions were invalid.

But as you have been shown, the assumptions even apply to the most simple of examples - you and your family.

So to use your eye colour example, both my kids have different eye colours to me. And my grandson is different to my daughter’s. So there has been a change in characteristics in my lineage over time. There are other examples but only one is needed. So we can tick that box.

Do you want to discuss the others or are you going to accept that the assumptions are valid?

But what you are now saying is that you refute every single basis for evolution (covering a gigantic amount of evidence over many different aspects of scientific endeavour - like cladistics which you seem not to either accept or understand) and when you are asked for your alternative, we get…a shoulder shrug.

You have literally no idea how the process has produced what we have now but you feel quite confident in saying that everyone else is wrong.

At least Buff has an answer: God did it when He created all the kinds all at once a few thousand years ago. But I guess that’s a bit too ‘fundamentalist’ for you. You don’t mind sharing the platform with him and Ed when they try to deny evolution, but when it comes to explaining how they believe it happened you shuffle of the dias and hope no-one notices your absence.

Are you spiking that Kool-Aid you’ve been drinking? Looks like you’ve once again slid into rant mode. The posts above are incoherent. Get back to me when you can muster a sober reply.

I do know how to rant. You’ll recognise it when you see it. The posts are reasonable responses to errors in your replies. Rather than attack the messenger maybe you’d do better to address the message.

So again, the list of assumptions for cladistics you posted is entirely reasonable for the reasons given. If you don’t think so then address that.

And you have admitted that you have no alternative to evolution. All you appear to do is try to reject the gargantuan amount of evidence for it without any attempt at formulating a reasonable alternative. If you reject that statement then proffer an alternative. Offer something positive.

Edit: And do you accept Buff’s claim that speciation occurs when the ‘new’ species cannot mate with the ‘old’ species?

 

[Freddy]

Evolution can’t be true. Main reasons it is not true:

1. Life comes from life; no matter how far back one goes, there’s no way life came out of non-life.
2. Human language(s); perhaps this is the most damning evidence against evolution.
   I’d simply define human language as words with specific pronunciation but most importantly, specific meaning(s) known to those who use the words to communicate. One can only acquire the meaning of words by learning from knowledgeable external sources. IOW, no one can speak a language unless they learn a language, no matter how far back one goes, meanings of words are acquired externally from knowledgeable sources.

1. That’s abiogenesis you’re talking about. Not evolution. They are different subjects.
2. I’m afraid I can’t think of anything sensible to say about this point. But full marks for offering a rejection of evolution in a form I have never seen before. And I thought I’d seen them all over the years…

 

[o_mlly]

So again, the list of assumptions for cladistics you posted is entirely reasonable for the reasons given. If you don’t think so then address that.

Spend less time telling people what they know or don’t know, mean or don’t mean. Those are symptomatic of one who has gone into a rant.

As to cladistics offering evidence that all living beings have a common ancestor, no study which assumes the truth of what is being debated generates evidence for what it assumes. Cladistics are imposed, not discovered.

 

[o_mlly]

Edit: And do you accept Buff’s claim that speciation occurs when the ‘new’ species cannot mate with the ‘old’ species?

How do you define “species”?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

So again, the list of assumptions for cladistics you posted is entirely reasonable for the reasons given. If you don’t think so then address that.

Spend less time telling people what they know or don’t know, mean or don’t mean. Those are symptomatic of one who has gone into a rant.

As to cladistics offering evidence that all living beings have a common ancestor, no study which assumes the truth of what is being debated generates evidence for what it assumes. Cladistics are imposed, not discovered.

You weren’t saying that cladistics comes up with the wrong conclusions. Please adress the point being made. Which was that you were saying that their initial assumptions were wrong. Would you like to either accept that you were incorrect or address why you weren’t.

It’s not possible to discuss what the conclusions are if you can’t accept the initial assumptions. You need to do that first.

And I can only respond to what you post. If you ignore any question on what your alternative is to evolution, or rather deflect the question and give a response to speciation then here’s your opportunity to give your version of the process…

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Edit: And do you accept Buff’s claim that speciation occurs when the ‘new’ species cannot mate with the ‘old’ species?

How do you define “species”?

As regards the case in point, Buff claims that it’s an inabilty to mate with another group. Specifically the ‘earlier’ group from which the new one evolved. He’s quite adamant about that. It’s a bedrock claim of his that this inability is a negative result of the evolutionary process. And he accepts it as one of the definitions of species. I agree with him.

Do you?

 

[Hume]

The existence of God is more of a philosophical debate than a scientific argument because you can’t prove or disprove him. We probably have to make an entire study of non physical properties(which might exist).

Good points, but I’ll add that science isn’t limited by the purely physical - just the observable. There are properties that we know a lot about that, in and of itself, lack physical form. It’s just expressed through those forms. Like energy.

 

[Hume]

o_mlly:

Freddy:

Edit: And do you accept Buff’s claim that speciation occurs when the ‘new’ species cannot mate with the ‘old’ species?

How do you define “species”?

As regards the case in point, Buff claims that it’s an inabilty to mate with another group. Specifically the ‘earlier’ group from which the new one evolved. He’s quite adamant about that. It’s a bedrock claim of his that this inability is a negative result of the evolutionary process. And he accepts it as one of the definitions of species. I agree with him.

Do you?

But that’s the darnedest thing. It’s a pretty good definition of “species”, but it can still be broken occasionally. There are a few species out there that are still genetically related enough to successfully interbreed. Like lions and tigers making ligers and tigons. Horses and donkeys can make mules and hinnys.

Hard to define.

Now, back to the gallery with me…

 

[o_mlly]

You weren’t saying that cladistics comes up with the wrong conclusions. Please adress the point being made.

The point being discussed is: Do all living things have a common ancestor?.

Citing a study that assumes the truth of the issue under discussion does not further the discussion. The study is irrelevant.

It’s not possible to discuss what the conclusions are if you can’t accept the initial assumptions.

There is no need to discuss conclusions when those conclusions are based on an assumption which has no warrant or argument in support; that’s why we call it an assumption. Yes, I reject the assumption that all living things have a common ancestor.

Why do you reject the rational principle of sufficient reason?

 

[Techno2000]

Science can’t prove God because science is the study of the physical world but God is not physical. We as Christians believe that God is outside of our world or outside dimension. We can’t prove something that’s not physical with physical knowledge. It’s just belief, it’s a big gamble. Some people just look at the historicity of different religions.

If you don’t believe in the Supernatural, then the devil has got you right where he wants you.

 

[Hume]

If you do believe in the supernatural, then the irrational have you right where they want you.

Kinda goes both ways, right?

 

[Noose001]

I guess we should find a balance between the two then.