Science Gives Christians Upper Hand Over Atheists

[PhilVaz]

Donna << You never deal with the anti-evolutionists interpretations. You just clog up the discussions with ad hominem. Donna >>

Let’s see…I deal with them here:

Evidence for Old Earth
Evidence for Evolution
Catholic Theological Objections
More on the Age of the Earth
More on Evolution
Theistic Evolution and the Church
Catholic Dogma on Creation

That’s enough. Do you need more?

Phil P

 

[steveandersen]

Hi Steve:

From that study: 5.1.1.1 Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)
While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.

As I mentioned I’m not a scientist but it seems to me that that is what is referred to as microevolution, which is observable. I call that adaptation. My neighbor’s ancestors emigrated from Africa. They are darker than me. My recent ancestors hailed from Erin’s Isle but we are all human beings. The new Primrose was still a flower. What are some repeatable experiments for macroevolution?

Donna

Diploid and Tetraploid hybrids are not uncommon especially in selective breeding of plants (a very UNnatural method of selection I might add)

But you seem to be mixing your metaphors. Yes you and your neighbor are still humans and yes the primrose is still a flower BUT de Vires didn’t say the primrose wasn’t a flower any more. He just said it was a different variety of primrose which is not in contradiction with evolution, it is exactly what evolution predicts.
No one is suggesting that what we call race is speciation. Could it result in speciation given enough time? Well maybe but somebody invented ships and airplanes so we’re not genetically isolated anymore so that road is closed.

The micro/Macro evolution split is meaningless in my mind. You can’t just be a “little bit” evolved. Either it happens or it doesn’t. No one I have encountered who has tried to assert that Micro happens but Macro doesn’t has yet to offer any explanation as to why or what stops the micro changes from adding up and going over the line or where that line is.

As for repeatable experiments for evolution …
(You mean aside form the link for observed speciation that I gave in a previous post?)

Firstly: There are some sciences like chemistry and some areas of physics that are ideally suited for bench scale laboratory work. Many non-scientist have this in mind when they start talking about “proving” this or that. However many sciences such as climatology, geology, astronomy, evolutionary biology are often restricted to post priori explanations of observable data or predictions of future data. After all you can’t trigger a hurricane or lock up a group of humans and control their environment and breeding for generations.
What you can do is look at populations that have been isolated from each other and look at the differences. What you can also do on a larger timescale is say “OK, given species A and C, there should be a species B between them that share these characteristics, that lived in X place at T time, and then go find evidence for species B. This has been done many times.

If you are going to ask for something like repeatable experiments to turn amphibians into reptiles then you’re barking up the wrong tree. That split happened a long time ago and the species that were involved are long gone.

Secondly: While evolution has some deterministic features there is some randomness in the process. It is not truly random but there is some randomness that makes exact repeatability impossible. You will get a range of solutions and probabilities. You can never go down the same road twice in evolution.

Thirdly: Since you have already raised the micro/macro distinction I’m guessing that you will reject all the easy observations such as leprosy, HIV, Smallpox or why we get different flu vaccinations each year. Truth of the matter is that the anti-biotic, herbicide, and insecticide industries are conducting de facto experiments in the field all the time. And while bacteria may be fairly simple organisms, plants and insects are complex.

I know you indicated that you were unhappy with pervious debates with evolutionists but it appears that you may have just been talking past one another.

 

[Maranatha]

Donna << You never deal with the anti-evolutionists interpretations. You just clog up the discussions with ad hominem. Donna >>

Let’s see…I deal with them here:

Evidence for Old Earth
Evidence for Evolution
Catholic Theological Objections
More on the Age of the Earth
More on Evolution
Theistic Evolution and the Church
Catholic Dogma on Creation

That’s enough. Do you need more?

Phil P

In regards to the origins of life and homo sapiens, do you conclude that God created the Universe and let it go like a “spinning top” or that he created it and used miracles to alter its course of events?

 

[ribozyme]

I possibly could include Donna’s comments, but its hard to top the comments I have saved in my Catholic Creationism article. I am looking for belligerent hardcore anti-evolutionist Catholics not your garden-variety “evolution doubter.” But Donna may qualify, I’ll wait for more.

Phil P

Does PoG count as a hardcore evolution denier?

 

[danielsgram]

Hello Phil:

To my statement “You never deal with the anti-evolutionists interpretations. You just clog up the discussions with ad hominem.”

You replied: “Let’s see…I deal with them here:….”

So, would you please tell me who, that is which anti-evolution scientists’ evidence/interpretation/arguments that you or “talk origins” are addressing with all that information that you posted?

Donna

 

[hecd2]

The truth is, Ken Miller’s work has been debunked. Don’t take evolutionists word for it. Do your homework. I did.
Donna

Here we are again with someone who demonstrates a breathtaking degree of ignorance of the science and the history and philosophy of science that she presumes to criticise. She is another one who claims that scientists who devote their lives to learning about the natural world are too stupid or too evil to detect fundamental flaws in their theories that are obvious to her.

I notice that she has been unable to substantiate the claim above and, indeed that is the case for everything she has said. She criticises the conclusions of scientists, she redefines the meaning of science to suit her ideas, she discounts the vast quantity of evidence for evolution without understanding the first thing about it. Here are just a few of her absurd statements:

When a person points out the problems with the evolutionary theory the evolutionists rarely if ever deal with the information at hand.

She has not in this thread posted any ‘information’ against evolutionary theory. If she had, those of us who actually know something about the subject would have dealt with it. But there is nothing to deal with other than argument by wishful thinking.

There is no scientific test you can offer for your belief.

Well, it’s not a ‘belief’, it’s a conclusion, but leaving that aside, I don’t see her addressing the tests of the fossil record, of molecular and anatomical homology, of molecular synteny, of nested hierarchy of species, of biogeography, of developmental biology, of shared biochemistry, of common chirality, of shared and limited residues, of hierarchies of pseudogenes and retrotransposons. In fact, I didn’t see her once in this thread show the slightest understanding of kindergarten biology. So why should anyone care for what she thinks about the foundations of modern biology?

Well, I figured that you knew about Roger Bacon and probably many others but I believe that it is very important to start the scientific age before the 14th century. Those are the folks who laid down the rules for the study of science. The quotes that I gave you were to show experiment is necessary. Evolution by definition is not scientific. It is a philosophy or religion

This egregiously ignores the history and philosophy of science since 1600. The study of modern science is not determined by the writing of mediaeval commentators, however distinguished. Donna doesn’t get to define science to suit herself. In the modern definition of science, although observation is absolutely required, experimentation in a lab is not. If it were, then geology, cosmology, palaeontology, palaeobiology, paleaoclimatology, archaeology, astrophysics, astronomy, etc would all lie outside science. They do not. Working scientists define science.The contents of Nature and Science define science. I suggest that if Donna really wants to ‘do her homework’, she takes a few science classes and learns what scientists actually do.

so I thought that I would show you that evolution cannot be substantiated by science

Nice idea - shame about her failure to address a single line of scientific evidence for evolution. Her whole argument is that, according to some mediaevals, science can only be conducted in a laboratory. Well, we are hardly compelled to take seriously the refutation of the theory of evolution by the redefinition of science.

To Be Continued

 

[hecd2]

Continuation

Evolution is based on observations that are unobservable, immeasurable and unrepeatable.

Observations that are unobservable, huh? Nuff said.

Science (from Latin scientia - knowledge) refers to the system of acquiring knowledge – based on empiricism, experimentation, and methodological naturalism

An excellent definition of science, that absolutely includes evolutionary theory. I particularly like the fact the definition of science that she posts includes the approach of methodological naturalism. We mustn’t forget that.

It isn’t true that evolution is substantiated in fact it cannot be substantiated therefore anyone holding that position must have faith in it to hold to it.

And her reason for saying that is exactly what given the vast quantity and multiple lines of evidence for common descent? Well actually, she hasn’t got one - this is more argument by assertion and wishful thinking.

Do you notice that no one has anything to rebut what anti-evolutionists write?

That’s becasue there isn’t anything substantial enough to ‘rebut’. Assertions do not an argument make.

For example is the Archaeopteryx a mere bird or not? It depends on which scientist you ask.

No it isn’t a mere bird and no it doesn’t depend on which scientist you ask. Palaeontologists who are specialists in the evolution of birds agree that archaeopteryx isn’t a ‘mere’ bird. Ironically the evolution of birds is becoming well documented in the fossil record.

anti-evolutionists:Those who do not believe in evolution …They use science for this.

Like Donna. Yes - Donna knows so much science that she is able to refute the mainstream science of professional scientists. I also believe in the Abominable Snowman.

Maybe Donna’s response to this will qualify for Phil’s wenbsite since nothing on this thread has so far.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[danielsgram]

Looks like I have to divide this post up too.

Diploid and Tetraploid hybrids are not uncommon especially in selective breeding of plants (a very UNnatural method of selection I might add)

But you seem to be mixing your metaphors.

Actually, what I wrote wasn’t a metaphor.

Yes you and your neighbor are still humans and yes the primrose is still a flower BUT de Vires didn’t say the primrose wasn’t a flower any more. He just said it was a different variety of primrose which is not in contradiction with evolution, it is exactly what evolution predicts.

 

[danielsgram]

Below is something that Professor Giertych wrote. This man is often ridiculed by evolutionists but he is never proven wrong. If anyone disagrees with my assertion, please furnish the proof that he was.

Professor Giertych introduced the subject by relating how his children had returned home from school having been taught about the theory of evolution. They were told that the proof of macroevolution - the common ancestry of biological life - was to be found in the science of genetics. This was news to Professor Giertych who had spent his life working at the highest level of genetic research. He revealed to the meeting that such proof does not exist in genetics, only disproof.

This was reinforced by the speech of Professor Emeritus Joseph Mastropaolo who had travelled from the USA to participate in the Brussels hearing. He explained that the biological sciences offer no empirical proof of macroevolution, just insurmountable problems. The theory of evolution consists merely of interpretational evidences which by their very nature could be interpreted in many different ways. He told the audience that the theory, after more than 150 years, still lacked any empirical proof.

Dr. Hans Zillmer, a German Palaeontologist and member of the New York Academy of Sciences, told the meeting that the fossil record holds no proof for evolution theory either. Instead of showing gradual change from one species to another, as is often claimed in the classroom, it actually reveals the stasis and stability of life forms.”

No one is suggesting that what we call race is speciation. Could it result in speciation given enough time? Well maybe.

That is conjecture on your part. Merely guessing. I’m looking for scientific proof.

The micro/Macro evolution split is meaningless in my mind.

More guessing.

You can’t just be a “little bit” evolved. Either it happens or it doesn’t.

I don’t like to call microevolution evolution at all because it confuses the issue. I’m talking about something that changes from a brute animal to a human or even amphibians into reptiles.

No one I have encountered who has tried to assert that Micro happens but Macro doesn’t has yet to offer any explanation as to why or what stops the micro changes from adding up and going over the line or where that line is.

More conjecture on your part. You are taking it by faith that this happens.

As for repeatable experiments for evolution …
(You mean aside form the link for observed speciation that I gave in a previous post?)

Firstly: There are some sciences like chemistry and some areas of physics that are ideally suited for bench scale laboratory work. Many non-scientist have this in mind when they start talking about “proving” this or that. However many sciences such as climatology, geology, astronomy, evolutionary biology are often restricted to post priori explanations of observable data or predictions of future data.

In other words guesses.

After all you can’t trigger a hurricane or lock up a group of humans and control their environment and breeding for generations.
What you can do is look at populations that have been isolated from each other and look at the differences. What you can also do on a larger timescale is say “OK, given species A and C, there should be a species B between them that share these characteristics, that lived in X place at T time, and then go find evidence for species B. This has been done many times.

Well but I’m looking for proof that one thing, a fish maybe turned into an amphibian or something like that. I’m looking for proof that man evolved from an animal. Proof, not conjecture.

If you are going to ask for something like repeatable experiments to turn amphibians into reptiles then you’re barking up the wrong tree. That split happened a long time ago and the species that were involved are long gone.

In order for evolution to be a science and not a philosophy it must be observable, measurable and repeatable or it is not science. Period

Secondly: While evolution has some deterministic features there is some randomness in the process. It is not truly random but there is some randomness that makes exact repeatability impossible. You will get a range of solutions and probabilities. You can never go down the same road twice in evolution.

Ergo it is a belief system, not a science.

I know you indicated that you were unhappy with pervious debates with evolutionists but it appears that you may have just been talking past one another.

Actually, the evolutionists talk past anti-evolutionists as they don’t have any thing to offer to prove or even to indicate that they are wrong.

 

[Atreyu]

And I am still looking for what science in Ken Miller’s Finding Darwin’s God, or what science in Keith Miller’s Perspectives on an Evolving Creation, or what science in Darrel Falk’s Coming to Peace with Science is wrong. If you don’t have those books, I suggest getting them since they are some of the best books on this topic.

Phil how does these compare to Keith Ward’s God, Chance and Necessity? Although I guess this latter book is against materialistic atheism, whereas the other books you mentioned are more against creationism, are they?

 

[danielsgram]

Okay hecd2, I’m all eyes. Please provide scientific proof for macroevolution.

Donna

 

[ribozyme]

Okay hecd2, I’m all eyes. Please provide scientific proof for macroevolution.

Donna

Oh please, Alec cannot provide scientific proof for evolution and he knows this.

In fact, “scientific proof” is an oxymoron much like and “scientific creationism”.

 

[hecd2]

Below is something that Professor Giertych wrote. This man is often ridiculed by evolutionists but he is never proven wrong. If anyone disagrees with my assertion, please furnish the proof that he was.

He’s a creationist who has bizarre and utterly cranky beliefs such as his grotesque belief in contemporaneous humans and dinosaurs that utterly discredit him. He has been thoroughly thrashed in the pages of Nature by the scientific community. See the thread:
‘Polish Catholic Creationist spanked in Nature’
He has never published a peer reviewed paper that demonstrates his cranky claim that genetics denies the theory of evolution - not one peer reviewed paper on this topic.

[With regard to race leading to speciation.] That is conjecture on your part. Merely guessing. I’m looking for scientific proof.

Proof is for liquor and mathematics. But look up mudskippers or cichlid fish or Anopheles gambiae or Ensatina salamanders or Drosophila pseudoobscura or Larus gulls.
Aury et al, *Global trends of whole-genome duplications revealed by the ciliate Paramecium tetraurelia,*Nature 444, 171 - 178 (09 Nov 2006)
Kutschera, *Mudskippers undermine ID claims on macroevolution, *Nature 439, (01 Feb 2006)
Strumbauer and Meyer, *Genetic divergence, speciation and morphological stasis in a lineage of African cichlid fishes , *Nature 358, 578 - 581 (13 Aug 1992)
Irwin et al, Speciation in a ring , Nature 409, 333 - 337 (18 Jan 2001)
Barton and Hewitt, *Adaptation, speciation and hybrid zones, *Nature 341, 497 - 503 (12 Oct 1989)
Sorenson et al, *Speciation by host switch in brood parasitic indigobirds, *Nature 424, 928 - 931 (21 Aug 2003)
Noor, Speciation driven by natural selection in Drosophila, Nature 375, 674 - 675 (22 Jun 1995)
Rieseberg et al, Hybrid speciation accompanied by genomic reorganization in wild sunflowers, Nature 375, 313 - 316 (25 May 1995)
Greig et al, Hybrid Speciation in Experimental Populations of Yeast, Science 29 November 2002 298: 1773-1775,
Irwin et al, Speciation by Distance in a Ring Species, Science 21 January 2005 307: 414-416
della Torre et al, Speciation within Anopholes gambiae, Science 4 October 2002 298: 115-117
Tauber and Tauber, Sympatric Speciation Based on Allelic Changes at Three Loci: Evidence from Natural Populations in Two Habitats, Science 23 September 1977 197: 1298-1299

I posted these before, but I guess you missed them. There’s always someone else who can’t be bothered to learn the basics of biology who thinks they can sit on high and criticise scientists. Well look up these papers before you come back.

I don’t like to call microevolution evolution at all because it confuses the issue. I’m talking about something that changes from a brute animal to a human or even amphibians into reptiles.Well but I’m looking for proof that one thing, a fish maybe turned into an amphibian or something like that. I’m looking for proof that man evolved from an animal. Proof, not conjecture.

As I said proof is for alcohol and mathematics not science, but evidence for the fish to land transition can be found in Acanthostega, Icthyostega, Pederpes finneyae, Tulerpeton, Tiktaalik, Goganasus etc. I can give you references to the source papers if you would like to look them up, or perhaps you could just read Jennifer Clack’s book, Gaining Ground. Now there is someone who has spent her life actually studying something instead of mouthing off ignorantly about it.

If you had the slightest integrity, you would disappear until you’d learned enough biology to read and understand all of these speciation and tetrapod transitional papers, and then you’d address them item by item. You won’t though. Like a typical creationist, you’ll ignore them and just keep on bleating about how there is no evidence for evolution.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[danielsgram]

He’s a creationist who has bizarre and utterly cranky beliefs such as his grotesque belief in contemporaneous humans and dinosaurs that utterly discredit him.

Like I said all you can do is ridicule him. You cannot disprove him.

Like a typical creationist, you’ll ignore them and just keep on bleating about how there is no evidence for evolution.

Did you see my definitions of creationists, evolutionists and antievolutionists? I am not a “creationist” in the sense that I study my bible with no thought to science like the fundamentalists. I am an antievolutionist.

BTW, I wrote that there is no proof for evolution, which is true, and you wrote that I said that there is no evidence of evolution. I notice that evolutionists do this a lot. I have never said that there is no evidence of evolution. But antievolutionists have this same evidence and they interpret it differently from evolutionists.

but evidence for the fish to land transition can be found in Acanthostega, Icthyostega, Pederpes finneyae, Tulerpeton, Tiktaalik, Goganasus etc. I can give you references to the source papers if you would like to look them up

I have already looked up several of those. In all due respect, evolutionists interpret the evidence that you are putting forward differently from an evolutionist. The antievolutionists IMHO are much more convincing.

Donna (who is still waiting for unambiguous proof)

 

[steveandersen]

In regards to the origins of life and homo sapiens, do you conclude that God created the Universe and let it go like a “spinning top” or that he created it and used miracles to alter its course of events?

How would you demonstrate the difference?

 

[PhilVaz]

OK couple of responses.

Atr << Phil how does these compare to Keith Ward’s God, Chance and Necessity? >>

Unfortunately I don’t have that book, but as I understand Keith Ward’s book is more a response to Dawkins philosophical atheism. I don’t think there is much response to classic “creationism” in Ward’s book. But biologist Ken Miller (1999), geologist Keith Miller (2003), and biologist Darrel Falk (2004) specifically deal with a number of creationist (both young-earth and old-earth and I.D.) arguments. These are the best three books on the creation-evolution topic I’ve found recently that present a lot of evidence for evolution. But much more evidence is presented in my articles I’ve linked above.

Rib << Does PoG count as a hardcore evolution denier? >>

He could, but I was hoping for extremely kooky discredited science too (the “moon dust” argument, Adam had a pet Brontosaurus, “Steve Andersen is God”, stuff like that, etc). PoG’s complaints were mainly theological objections (Pius XII and polygenism, Leo XIII and his marriage encyclical, other pre-Darwin theological objections, etc) which I’ll admit are legitimate theological objections that need to be answered. And we answered them in that thread for the most part.

Donna << So, would you please tell me who, that is which anti-evolution scientists’ evidence/interpretation/arguments that you or “talk origins” are addressing with all that information that you posted? >>

Sungenis specifically, and he relies on the old ICR arguments here and here. Bogus science. Geologist G. Brent Dalrymple dealt with this stuff two decades ago. Read about that here (looks like someone “hacked” the TalkOrigins archive again since the article is blank. See a cache of that page here).

Maran << In regards to the origins of life and homo sapiens, do you conclude that God created the Universe and let it go like a “spinning top” or that he created it and used miracles to alter its course of events? >>

No to the first question, that would be Deism. Catholics must hold as a matter of faith:

God, through His Providence, protects and guides all that He has created. (De Fide)

This doesn’t suggest HOW God guides creation, nor what processes God uses. That is for science to discover. Miracles are not testable, but I accept miracles, especially those approved by the Church (Fatima, etc). I am reading the C.S. Lewis classic Miracles for a more sophisticated understanding.

Phil P

 

[wildleafblower]

Hope this helps…

“… in science there is no ‘knowledge’, in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth. … This view means, furthermore, that we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic). In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by ‘proof’ an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory.”

talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html
Library of Congress Classification:Class Q – Science
Class Q: Science is a classification used by the Library of Congress classification system. This article outlines the subclasses of Class Q.

Q Science (General)
QA Mathematics
QB Astronomy
QC Physics
QD Chemistry
QE Geology
QH Natural history - Biology
QK Botany
QL Zoology
QM Human anatomy
QP Physiology
QR Microbiology
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library…s_Q_–_Science

The Library of Congress Classification (LCC) is a system of library classification developed by the Library of Congress. It is used by most research and academic libraries in the U.S. and several other countries — most public libraries and small academic libraries continue to use the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC). It is not to be confused with the Library of Congress Subject Headings.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Congress_Classification:Class_Q_–_Science
I don’t understand why mathematics is appearing under SCIENCE when there is objection to it being a science. help I can’t figure this one out Alec.Your comment, “As I said proof is for alcohol and mathematics not science…” There may be a slight possiblity that in the United States , researchers consider mathematics to be a sub-class of Science

 

[hecd2]

Did you see my definitions of creationists, evolutionists and antievolutionists? I am not a “creationist” in the sense that I study my bible with no thought to science like the fundamentalists. I am an antievolutionist.

Really? On what grounds?

I have never said that there is no evidence of evolution.

So you think that there is a lot of evidence for evolution?

But antievolutionists have this same evidence and they interpret it differently from evolutionists.

In what way precisely?

I have already looked up several of those. In all due respect, evolutionists interpret the evidence that you are putting forward differently from an evolutionist. The antievolutionists IMHO are much more convincing.

Oh really? In what way precisely do you consider this evidence to be ‘unconvincing’? You do see that this, like all your arguments, is so much hand-waving fluff? In what way is the transition from polydactyly or the co-option of the stapes unconvincing? Do try very hard to be precise.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[steveandersen]

Okay hecd2, I’m all eyes. Please provide scientific proof for macroevolution.

Donna

If you insist on the micro = variations within a species and macro = speciation distinction then go to the list of observed instances of speciation list in Post #34 for your “proof”. I’m not sure what more you would need. Speciation happens. It is not a guess or a theory it is a fact. We have observed it both in the field and in the lab. The mechanism to explain the details of how it happens is the theory part.

PS proof is for geometry and liquor not science.

 

[danielsgram]

Phil:

Sungenis is not a scientist. What antievolution SCIENTIST does your work or rather the work of talk origins SPECIFICALLY debunk? I would like specific quotes from a scientist with specific quotes proving that scientist wrong.

Donna