Happy Birthday, Mr. Darwin: Growing Majority of Americans Support Teaching Both Sides of Evolution Debate

[PEPCIS]

"PEPCIS:

Well, since we are talking STRICTLY science (afterall, evolution does not deal in religion, right?), then I would say we would have to observe a macro-evolutive event. That would be pretty convincing, don’t you think?

Sure, just stick around a million years.

Well, why didn’t you say that evolution was unfalsifiable???

I’m staying in your realm of science only to answer this: the answer could

be “no.” Outside of the Bible (or non-scientific a priori assumptions) there is no objective evidence that all humans are related unless we couple that with some basic assumptions. Outside of those assumptions, there is no solid, objective evidence.

Sideline:

Wow, so according you you, we know almost nothing scientifically speaking.

Well, I guess it depends on who you talk to. If I listen to you, we are on the cusp of a human macro-evolutionary event on the order of a Star Trek movie!!!

Sideline:

Any test that would prove my brother is in fact related to me would be void unless you actually observed my parents having sex twice and kept my mother in isolation in between.

That’s not anywhere close to what I said, but who’s actually reading my posts anywho.

But, speaking PURELY objectively, there is no way that I could scientifically prove that your brother is your brother UNLESS I FIRST make certain assumptions a part of my investigation.

One specific assumption that you must make is that your “brother” is a child of your parents. Inherent in that assumption is another assumption that your parents performed coitus which resulted in your mother’s pregnancy.

One thing that has already been verified, and requires no unwarranted assumptions is that when a man and woman have a child together, that their child can be verified as an immediate member of their family by DNA testing. These things have been verified over and over again and again, having been objectively witnessed first hand.

Forensically speaking, it is not unwarranted to make those assumptions which are based upon previously verified observable phenomena.

Sideline:

Genetics would be out, because we have to assume that the genetic similarity would be because of common ancestry.

No, because, as I noted above, familial DNA testing has been performed on people in objectively determined steps so that we know that when parentage is not in question that specific results will always prevail.

Taking this as a WARRANTED assumption is something that we do everyday in forensics, and is an acceptable form of science.

However, forensicly speaking, we do have our experiences which establish for us that we have never before witnessed a human give birth to anything other than another human. Collectively we all conclude (reasonably) that this is sufficient to establish that we are all related.

Sideline:

No it isn’t. Have you ever seen an Chinese woman give birth to red-haired, green-eyed children? I haven’t. I think I would have to see you breed red-haired, green-eyed children from only Chinese people to think that they could be related.

I was speaking GENERALLY in terms of species relation. You were speaking SPECIFICALLY in terms of familial relation. Apples and Oranges.

Of course, if you want to argue that aborigines are more or less genetically superior to other races, you are free to do so. But, I tend to accept the Bible’s declaration that we are all founded in the same lineage as Adam.

Sideline:

Wow… calling me a racist because you can’t win your argument. That’s pretty low.

LOL Call a black kettle black, and it will leave black marks on a white piece of paper. Here’s the rub: we KNOW that there are relations that can be confirmed by DNA testing. This is something that has been previously confirmed OBJECTIVELY. It is REASONABLE to make certain assumptions that have been previously verified in an objectively, scientific manner.

What we have learned in our exchange is that evolutionists use NON-VERIFIABLE MEANS which are SUBJECTIVELY generated to establish certain statements which they then claim are OBJECTIVELY DERIVED!!!

It is incredible how many people are duped by this.

 

[PEPCIS]

This is an interesting report from a creationist perspective:

Astonishing DNA complexity demolishes
neo-Darwinism

Actually, it is claimed that creationists only produce religious opinions but this paper in question is enough to refute that notion.

EXCELLENT article. This is where the rubber meets the road - INFORMATION*!!!*

Without information, there is no creation. Evolution theory cannot account for the massive accumulation of information in the genome.

 

[PEPCIS]

The one question put to Creationists that Creationists are guaranteed to ignore, is the question, “How did God create life?”. Not Who, but How.

In the Beginning, God…
Cpl Ferro:

How is all Evolutionary Theory addresses, the Who is immaterial, fine say it’s God, whatever, but How did this stuff happen? The Creationists walk away from the question, won’t even address it. How is that science, then?

Creationism’s be-all-end-all is to simply get everyone to admit “God did it, huyucks!” and then ignore the question of How forever. It is anti-science in principle, because it produces no results.

Those are decent questions. But what’s missing in this investigation of yours, Cpl Ferro? Let me tell you what is missing:

Evolutionary Theory CANNOT address the “how” until they can establish that the how actually happened. How did the first life form arise? What is the mechanism for that life form arising???

 

[buffalo]

Hang on second Buffalo! The scientists “know” bananas and humans share a common ancestor which was a rock.

enetic percentage that applies to the similarity with rocks?

Not sure, but I do know the rocks, bananas and us all share a common ancestor known as hydrogen.

http://kolbecenter.org/graphics/hydrogencolor.jpg

 

[Cpl_Ferro]

Funny…the article that reggie posted (which he said was from a creationist site) nowhere said, “God did it, ignore the question of how.” It actually said a lot about “how.” Did you read the article?

Yes, I did. Nowhere does it discuss the “How” to which I referred, namely, how did this organism come to exist. The fact that what I was saying was misread is itself evidence of how well-ignored this problem is by Creationists. They have only one card to play: God-magic…poof and there it is.

http://ricotheclownandmagician.com/IMAGES/magic-hat-stars.gif

 

[PEPCIS]

"PEPCIS:

This is quite far from what science has established. Spiraling galaxies are exactly OPPOSITE of what one could come to expect in a random evolution of the universe.

PEPCIS, the point is that no matter what we observe about the universe, our observations would always be consistent with the hypothesis that the universe was designed to be that way.

You may not be aware, but that is nothing more than a nice cop-out, which is designed to effectively shut out any dissent from the atheistic/evolutionary position. But just because you can’t imagine a feasible falsification does not mean that there is no means of falsifying the theory of design.

I believe that I saw in an earlier post a reference to your ideology as being atheistic - please correct me if I am wrong. But, let’s kill two birds with one stone.

The first bird is that there is no such thing as an atheist. The second bird is that in order to falsify the notion that the universe was designed would require absolute, complete knowledge.

The first bird gets the first whack from the stone, because it is clear that you do not possess all the knowledge in the universe, therefore you could never say that there is no God, because it would be fairly simple to falsify that notion by the logic that there could possibly be knowledge outside of yourself which could prove God’s existence.

The second bird gets whacked by the same stone because we can suddenly realize that if we had all the knowledge in the universe, our intelligence would be able to easily design a falsification of the theory of design.

 

[PEPCIS]

Dear Pepcis,

The actual percentage figure at the bottom in your post 336 is the kind of info I’m looking for. Thank you.

You’re welcome. I always aim to please, but I don’t always aim well.

granny:

It seems to me that some evolutionists are saying that the current variety of human genomes in the present population is possible either because there is more than one common ancestor or many common ancestors which trace back to a common one.

Yes, that is true. But their argument is a circular one because it relies on the assumption that evolution is true, and then seeks to prove it by application of data which they claim supports that evolution is true. So, instead of proving evolution to be true, they find data which supports their assumptions. That is not how REAL science works.

granny:

The companion argument is that there is some kind of bottleneck because of the time it takes for mutations to occur and then become fixed. I probably messed up the above; however, their point is that it would be physically impossible for all the current people on earth to have descended from only two parents.

Well, I sure would like to hear someone explain that to me. I’m not sure that is what they are saying. Most of the data that evolutionists have been promoting is said to point to a recent ancestry of about 100,000 to 200,000 years from an original “adam and eve” parentage.

granny:

I am not out to win any argument, at least not at this point. What I am looking for is scientific possibilities that we all are descended from one couple. The possibility doesn’t have to be probable; it just has to exist in order to make me happy.

I think I understand what you are saying. I always caution other Christians to not be to concerned if the Bible doesn’t seem to match up scientifically with the “evidence.” That’s because the evidence (as I pointed out above, and in other posts) is not OBJECTIVELY DERIVED. If it isn’t OBJECTIVELY DERIVED, then that means that it must be SUBJECTIVELY DERIVED.

If it was SUBJECTIVELY DERIVED, then that means that their ideology/religion is what is driving their conclusions. Hmmmmm…I wonder what it is that MOST evolutionists adhere to? Oh, yeah, atheism and other liberal ideologies.

granny:

Somewhere above, I saw the idea of a macro evolutionary event.

A “macro” evolutionary event is different from a “micro” evolutionary event. Every day we witness microevolution. However, no one has ever witnessed a MACROevolutionary event.

Micro evolution is when bacterial populations evolve to be resistant to a certain antibiotic. Macro evolution is when that bacteria becomes a different species.

granny:

…here is how my imagination works.

I like your imagination. I hope that you aren’t snow-bound any more!!

granny:

It doesn’t matter to me if humans were created instantly or if they evolved from clay which evolved to…to the point where they were completely different from other creatures with that amazing gap in place.

I agree with you. It doesn’t matter if we were specially created by God, or if God performed creation by evolution. What DOES matter to me is that whatever we learn should be conformable to doctrine. While the Bible is no science book, it is equally true to state that the Bible is NOT scientifically inaccurate.

As a matter of fact, most of the scientists during the enlightenment period and prior got their information and inspiration from the Bible. They then would proceed to discover many wonderful things regarding God’s creation.

For example, Matthew Maury read in the Psalms where there were “paths in the seas.” He then went on to discover these “paths” which went on to enhance shipping movements and lanes, and decrease the amount of time it took to travel from England to the new world.

granny:

All humanity is a joy to behold.

I need to meditate on that…

 

[Sideline]

Just to let people know, I have decided to spare my sanity and blocked PEPCIS.

If you are unclear how he is wrong on… pretty much everything… and you would like to know why and how. Let me know. I will respond.

 

[reggieM]

The one question put to Creationists that Creationists are guaranteed to ignore, is the question, “How did God create life?”. Not Who, but How. How is all Evolutionary Theory addresses…

Is it worth it to repeat what (some of?) the Darwinists here like to claim on a daily basis, namely, that “evolution does not refer to the origin of life”?

… No, I’ll skip it this time.

 

[buffalo]

What are the philosophical implications of the Theory of Evolution? Joseph Seifert explains why the Theory of Evolution is a poor explanation to the origin of man and of all living creatures.

 

[reggieM]

I’m going to be taking a break from CAF for the next 40 days.
Wishing everyone a blessed Lent and I will see you again in Eastertide!

 

[Leela]

You may not be aware, but that is nothing more than a nice cop-out, which is designed to effectively shut out any dissent from the atheistic/evolutionary position. But just because you can’t imagine a feasible falsification does not mean that there is no means of falsifying the theory of design.

Agreed. It is impossible to prove a such a negative, but the problem for one arguing that design is a scientific theory is that the scientist who makes such a claim has the obligation to justify that her hypothesis is a valid scientific hypothesis by explaining how her hypothesis could be falsified. In other words, until you say how your hypothesis could be falsified, it’s not really a scientific hypothesis yet.

I believe that I saw in an earlier post a reference to your ideology as being atheistic - please correct me if I am wrong. But, let’s kill two birds with one stone.

The first bird is that there is no such thing as an atheist. The second bird is that in order to falsify the notion that the universe was designed would require absolute, complete knowledge.

I’ll let this one go because it is off topic, and I’d rather that you didn’t write off my arguments without engaging them as being typical atheist copouts, anyway, as you began to do in your first sentence above.

The first bird gets the first whack from the stone, because it is clear that you do not possess all the knowledge in the universe, therefore you could never say that there is no God, because it would be fairly simple to falsify that notion by the logic that there could possibly be knowledge outside of yourself which could prove God’s existence.

Thank goodness I’ve never claimed that there is no God.

The second bird gets whacked by the same stone because we can suddenly realize that if we had all the knowledge in the universe, our intelligence would be able to easily design a falsification of the theory of design.

That may be fine for any nonscientist who prefers to think of the universe as designed by God to be the way it is, but as I explained above, it just doesn’t fly as justification for the validity of design as a scientific hypothesis.

Best,
Leela

 

[buffalo]

The Days Of Creation
Beliefs of the Church Fathers & Doctors

 

[LoriAMeyers]

1. What causes gravity? …and I mean something more detailed than “it’s a property of matter”.

The correct answer to those questions is “We don’t really know.” The correct answer to many questions about evolution is the same.

As far as question 2 goes we do know the answer. Moving bodies warp the space around them as they pass through space/time. It is something that can clearly be measured.

 

[ricmat]

1. What causes gravity? …and I mean something more detailed than “it’s a property of matter”.

The correct answer to those questions is “We don’t really know.” The correct answer to many questions about evolution is the same.

As far as question 2 goes we do know the answer. Moving bodies warp the space around them as they pass through space/time. It is something that can clearly be measured.

Hello Lori and welcome to CAF.

Yes, the explanation you refer to above is the standard one used in physics. It is a model of the underlying reality which is useful for making predictions.

But measuring something doesn’t explain the cause, it merely measures an effect. The nuclear and electrostatic forces can be explained (if that is the correct word) by reference to the exchange of sub-atomic particles. There is no corresponding explanation for the gravitational force.

And is gravity a wave, or not? At what speed to gravity waves travel? Nobody knows. The point here is that there are many things we don’t know, even commonly observed things like gravity. The mechanics of evolution (at the level of DNA mutation and transmission) are NOT known, but some people pretend that it is known.

 

[grannymh]

Dear Pepcis,

Speaking about being snow-bound. A St. Bernard dog, with the most delicious brandy tied to his furry neck, appeared at my door. But the gift card was missing. Was that you who sent him? There has been a brief thaw, black ice, and some more snow. With the sun out, prospects are good. A heat wave of 40 degrees has been forecasted.

Well, I sure would like to hear someone explain that [bottleneck] to me. I’m not sure that is what they are saying. Most of the data that evolutionists have been promoting is said to point to a recent ancestry of about 100,000 to 200,000 years from an original “adam and eve” parentage.

 

[The_Barbarian]

EXCELLENT article. This is where the rubber meets the road - INFORMATION!!!

Without information, there is no creation. Evolution theory cannot account for the massive accumulation of information in the genome.

All mutations increase information in a population. It is one of the cornerstones of population genetics. Would you like to see the numbers?

No one who knows anything about information thinks that it rules out evolution.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Micro evolution is when bacterial populations evolve to be resistant to a certain antibiotic. Macro evolution is when that bacteria becomes a different species.

Speciation is well-documented. Even most creationists now admit the evolution of new species, genera, and even families.

They have just re-defined “macroevolution” upward.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Is it worth it to repeat what (some of?) the Darwinists here like to claim on a daily basis, namely, that “evolution does not refer to the origin of life”?

It’s true. If you knew what the theory was about, you’d probably be more effective against it.

Honest creationists like Kurt Wise freely admit that evolutionary theory is not about the origin of life.

 

[SHW]

Thus refuting the idea that we shouldn’t teach an alternative theory of gravity.

July 2004 Vatican Statement on Creation and Evolution

In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis ), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II 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.

Thank you so much for this link. I have been trying to locate this Vatican Statement on Creation and Evolution because I wanted to read it so that I can defend it.

I have not read it yet, but I think that what matters to Catholic Christians is that there actually was an Adam and Eve and Adam was the first of mankind to receive an immortal soul from God. So, to me, it does not make any difference if we evolved from monkeys or not. In other words, perhaps we are all made of stardust.

Pax,
SHW