B
buffalo
Guest
Silly, as in “Silly Rabbit”.
It would be explained away anyhow.It can be a feature of ID as well. Common design of a number of prototypical forms that regenerated according to their own kind is also common descent.
- Status
It would be explained away anyhow.It can be a feature of ID as well. Common design of a number of prototypical forms that regenerated according to their own kind is also common descent.
R
rossum
Guest
Your problem is that, given an omnipotent designer, there is no way of disproving design. If a designer has limitations, then anything outside those limitations will serve to disprove design. If a designer has no limitations, then disproof is extremely difficult. Science prefers explanations that can be disproved, but have not, to explanations which cannot even be disproved.
A lot of science works by testing hypotheses and rejecting the failed hypotheses. Last one standing wins, but the condition of entry is that there must be a test for failure. Here is Darwin providing just that for evolution. Twice.
What are the equivalent statements from ID?
So far, I have not seen anything from the ID side which fills in the blank. That is a serious failure in ID’s attempt to be science.
rossum
B
buffalo
Guest
Do you agree with hugh_farey evolution has no limits?
R
rossum
Guest
No, I disagree. For instance, given the current state of life on earth, a pegasus will not evolve. A tetrapod developing into a hexapod with a mixture of characteristics from Aves and Placentalia would not be possible.
A pegasus is a designed animal, designed by humans.
A wyvern on the other hand is possible. It is possible that the legend of wyverns was originated by the finding of the skeleton of a large pterosaur.
Once evolution has developed a basic type, it is not possible to merge that type with different types.
rossum
A pegasus is a designed animal, designed by humans.
A wyvern on the other hand is possible. It is possible that the legend of wyverns was originated by the finding of the skeleton of a large pterosaur.
Once evolution has developed a basic type, it is not possible to merge that type with different types.
rossum
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Awww. Not a flying horse? Oh, well. Evolution makes rubbish spaghetti carbonara too, to be fair.
R
Richca
Guest
No, what I said is not self-contradictory at all. You are stating or reading into what I said, what I did not say which you seem to often do. I was responding to your post about the probability of the theory evolution. Probability by definition is not certainty. I also stated that probability does not enter into the idea of creation as if it is probable or not whether God can create. According to the catholic faith and a correct idea of God, we know and believe with 100% certainty that not only can God create things but also that the world was created by Him. Then I stated what comparison is there between the probability of evolution and the 100% certainty of creation? If one was to consider or juxtapose as you suggest which is the better argument, namely, possibility or certainty, than I think it is obvious that the certainty of creation is the better argument. I did not say anything about whether God is 100% unable to do things by evolution (see below).
I did state in the first paragraph of the post the following:
‘I believe that indeed it is not only not possible but absurd according to the nature of organisms that greater complex species evolved from lower species or the evolution of any novel organs, structures, functions, or whole body plans from the lower and simpler organisms.’
What I meant by ‘according to the nature of organisms’ is according to the created order of this world and the natures and ‘laws’ as it were that God created and implanted in things. We can have a scientific knowledge of things because we observe among second causes, i.e., the natures of the variety of creatures, that they produce a regular or determinate pattern of effects unless impeded by some other cause. For example, if one combines sodium and chloride you get salt, not iron or water or a rabbit. Or, if a pair of rabbits breed we get a rabbit or rabbits. It is in this sense I said that I believe macroevolution is not possible ‘according to the nature of organisms’ or according to the created order and natures of things.
Last edited:
R
Richca
Guest
(continued)
This is not limiting God’s power but is simply the nature and operation of the world God created. Nor am I saying that God could not do things by evolution, I readily admit he could but I also believe that this would involve ‘miracles’ and God’s direct supernatural intervention or creation similar to combining sodium and chloride and out pops a rabbit. Of course, the theory of evolution was invented by Darwin and company as an explanation of the origin of species with the very intention of not having recourse to creation by God or his direct and supernatural intervention.
Ironically, I believe that the only way macroevolution could work is through ‘miracles’ or God’s direct creative activity. However, I don’t believe God created the variety of animals and plants in this ‘miraculous evolutionary way’ and I find the idea quite absurd and contrary to the word of God. I believe as God’s word in Genesis 1 tells us that God himself created all the kinds or variety of species of plants and animals and from this creation each species propagates as we observe.
This is not limiting God’s power but is simply the nature and operation of the world God created. Nor am I saying that God could not do things by evolution, I readily admit he could but I also believe that this would involve ‘miracles’ and God’s direct supernatural intervention or creation similar to combining sodium and chloride and out pops a rabbit. Of course, the theory of evolution was invented by Darwin and company as an explanation of the origin of species with the very intention of not having recourse to creation by God or his direct and supernatural intervention.
Ironically, I believe that the only way macroevolution could work is through ‘miracles’ or God’s direct creative activity. However, I don’t believe God created the variety of animals and plants in this ‘miraculous evolutionary way’ and I find the idea quite absurd and contrary to the word of God. I believe as God’s word in Genesis 1 tells us that God himself created all the kinds or variety of species of plants and animals and from this creation each species propagates as we observe.
Last edited:
G
Glark
Guest
Of course I knew that - I believe it too, but I state it as a belief, not as a fact. You claimed that some creationists state it is a “fact” that God created in six literal days, but as yet I haven’t seen any evidence of that. Stating a belief is not the same as stating it is a fact.
Last edited:
G
Glark
Guest
Where did I claim that Gould is against evolution? I quoted Gould because he admits there is a lack of transitionals, which he admited is “the trade secret of paleontology”. This lack of transitionals obviously didn’t stop him believing in evolution. Most athesits believe in evolution long before they become aware of any so-called “evidence”.
A
Aloysium
Guest
Spent a day in Ecuador’s Cloud Forest watching various hummingbirds.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
On my way to the Galapagos, where I’ll have no Internet.
Will let everyone know if I find any evolution.
Naturalist here today kept talking about it. Didn’t bother to correct her, focussing on the underlying wonder of nature that she was really talking about.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
On my way to the Galapagos, where I’ll have no Internet.
Will let everyone know if I find any evolution.
Naturalist here today kept talking about it. Didn’t bother to correct her, focussing on the underlying wonder of nature that she was really talking about.
Last edited:
G
Glark
Guest
The existence of Christ’s Church depends on believing in evolution? Wow, you really are dazed and confused!
G
Glark
Guest
Evolutionists use exactly the same approach, but instead of “Then a miracle occurs” they use magical stories that have no empirical basis - reptiles growing feathers, for example.
G
Glark
Guest
Welcome to evolution “science”!
G
Glark
Guest
… and in evolution science , none of it needs empirical evidence - which makes it a perfect habitat for bs-artists and their junk science.
Last edited:
G
Glark
Guest
“And the great dragon was cast out, the ancient serpent, he who is called Devil and Satan, he who deceives the whole world” - Rev 12:9.
G
Glark
Guest
“indirect empirical evidence” is a nonsense term and an oxymoron - like “indirect eye-witness”. This might explain why the Internet has never heard of it.
“Empirical evidence, also known as sensory experience, is the information received by means of the senses, particularly by observationand documentation of patterns and behavior through experimentation” … “Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation” - Wiki.
So there are at least three evo’s on this thread who don’t know what “empirical evidence” means … and one of them was a highschool science teacher! For two of them, this ignorance is somewhat understandable - evolutionism has no use for a basic knowledge of true science.
Here’s a question one might find in a junior-high science exam:
If you could live for millions of years and saw a hominid evolve into a human, would this represent empirical evidence of the theory that humans evolved from a microbe?
What would your answer be?
“Empirical evidence, also known as sensory experience, is the information received by means of the senses, particularly by observationand documentation of patterns and behavior through experimentation” … “Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation” - Wiki.
So there are at least three evo’s on this thread who don’t know what “empirical evidence” means … and one of them was a highschool science teacher! For two of them, this ignorance is somewhat understandable - evolutionism has no use for a basic knowledge of true science.
Here’s a question one might find in a junior-high science exam:
If you could live for millions of years and saw a hominid evolve into a human, would this represent empirical evidence of the theory that humans evolved from a microbe?
What would your answer be?
B
Bradskii
Guest
You missed a bit out.
“Empirical research is research using empirical evidence. It is a way of gaining knowledge by means of direct and indirect observation or experience”. Empirical research - Wikipedia
Hence ‘direct empirical evidence’ and ‘indirect empirical evidence’.
Just because you type something into your browser and you don’t get a hit on those exact words doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. If you think Mr. Google will do all your work for you without doing some thinking for yourself, you will frequently come up looking a little slack.
G
Glark
Guest
Hope you have a good time.
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Partially true. I was deriving a logical deduction from what you did say, to illustrate an inherent contradiction.
This was your big mistake. This entire thread is devoted to the meaning of ‘creation’ with a small ‘c’. Few of us here have any doubt whatever regarding the responsibility of God for his universe. There may be overt atheists or even closet atheists, but most of the evolutionists here have declared at least their Christianity, or their Catholicism. The distinction we are discussing is the difference between Creationism with a big ‘C’, by which we mean the spontaneous appearance of organisms without ancestors, and Evolution, by which we mean that every organism does have ancestors. Your “100% certainty of creation” is not the same as as 100% certainty of the spontaneous appearance of organisms without ancestors.
This is a false dichotomy.
Exactly. Your judgement that Evolution is impossible is a comment on God’s omnipotence.
Exactly. You don’t believe God was able have ordered his universe in an evolutionary way.
Exactly. Back to limiting God again. He could do evolution your way, but he couldn’t do it my way.
This is wholly untrue, as any reading of anything Darwin wrote would reveal to you. It is, however, a common Creationist back projection.
Last edited:
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
I think it mostly is, actually. Rossum’s examples from AiG and ICR look pretty dogmatic to me,
The existence of Christ’s Church depends on the honesty of its followers. Any acrimony this site engenders is not due to the difference in belief between its antagonists, but in the methods Creationists use to attempt to justify their views. I have no problem at all with anybody who answers the question; “Is Evolution true” by saying: “I believe not”. A few Creationists here have discussed their faith in theological terms, and that’s fine. What isn’t fine, and not only doesn’t lead to an acceptance of Christianity but actively turns people against it are arguments based on deliberate, known untruths.
For instance, would I be right in thinking Bradskii is an atheist? Given a debate, I suspect I, with Rossum and perhaps Aloysium’s assistance, could at least get him to question his beliefs. The transparent, persistent, and petulant distortions presented by most of the Creationists on this site are powerful incentives to reject any kind of religion absolutely, particularly any one biblically based.
Last edited:
- Status