OldEnglishSheepdog

Preconceived notions are very deleterious to good science. If God is everywhere, then think of it as a math equation where you reduce things to their least common denominator. Like 2x * 5x = 10x. No matter what "x" is, it does not impact the equation...like supernatural does not impact the natural world. I'm not sure I understand your point - how does this example demonstrate that preconceived notions are deleterious to good science? All science requires preconceived notions just in order to get started. Science hasn't proven that our memory is reliable, that reality is reliable, that we have the capacity to accurately understand nature, etc. Those are all presuppositions that are simply assumed, and yet are necessary for the reliability of the enterprise of science. Additionally these are all things that make perfect sense if there is an orderly Creator who created an orderly creation, within which are beings made in His image and are therefore able to sense and comprehend His creation, and yet naturalism has no explaination of why would could trust any of these things if we're all just matter in motion, physically projected by some mechanism of universal expansion. Further, every hypothesis rests upon the shoulders of a world of previously confirmed hypotheses. You don't test everything every time you test something. Could you clarify what you mean please? There is a difference between preconceived notions and knowledge building on itself. A simple example is Galileo. There was a preconceived notion in Christianity that the Earth was the center of all creation. Galileo pointed his telescope to the sky and noticed that there were some bodies that orbited a non-Earth object. We built on Galileo's observations and did away with the preconceived notion. Hope that clarifies it some for you. I don't understand how your example demonstrates the harm of those preconceived notions. What about the alpha character introduced to your equation demonstrates an injuirous preconception? Further, I don't understand how you deal with those preconceived notions upon which science is based, if such notions are so damaging to the enterprise of science. What about the preconception that our minds are capable of understanding patterns, or that natural laws will continue to be uniform? If preconceptions are so damaging to science what do we do about those preconceptions that, without which, there would be no science? Finally, I think it's worth noting that geocentrism didn't find its origins in Christianity - it came from Greek naturalism. Funny how that example is always chalked up to an error on the part of Christianity just because the church made the mistake of uncritically accepting 'the science'. If it's a lesson in what we should more critical of, it wouldn't be God's word but man's.

Hey Jerry, could I get an answer to my question please? If speciation is necessary for both theories, how do you suppose that it's evidence of the one over and against the other? If iis evidence for evolution, do you accept evolution? Can you define species in the creation "science" view of things? I didn't say it's evidence for evolution. I implied that whether or not you're an evolutionist speciation is necessary, ergo it can't be evidence for evolution. The best defintion of a species I've found is any animals that can breed and have fertile offspring. So, if both evolutionists and creationists agree that animals speciated, how then can it be evidence for evolution over and against special creation?

Preconceived notions are very deleterious to good science. If God is everywhere, then think of it as a math equation where you reduce things to their least common denominator. Like 2x * 5x = 10x. No matter what "x" is, it does not impact the equation...like supernatural does not impact the natural world. I'm not sure I understand your point - how does this example demonstrate that preconceived notions are deleterious to good science? All science requires preconceived notions just in order to get started. Science hasn't proven that our memory is reliable, that reality is reliable, that we have the capacity to accurately understand nature, etc. Those are all presuppositions that are simply assumed, and yet are necessary for the reliability of the enterprise of science. Additionally these are all things that make perfect sense if there is an orderly Creator who created an orderly creation, within which are beings made in His image and are therefore able to sense and comprehend His creation, and yet naturalism has no explaination of why would could trust any of these things if we're all just matter in motion, physically projected by some mechanism of universal expansion. Further, every hypothesis rests upon the shoulders of a world of previously confirmed hypotheses. You don't test everything every time you test something. Could you clarify what you mean please?

Hey Jerry, could I get an answer to my question please? If speciation is necessary for both theories, how do you suppose that it's evidence of the one over and against the other?

The only part of this post that I disagree with is that evolution is defined as reproduction with variation. Reproduction with variation has always been believed. Evolution is a theory that was popularized in the 1800s and is an alternative to special creation. Evolution is the theory that that reproduction with variation from a common cellular origin accounts for all diversity among biological organisms. That's actually what everybody always means by evolution, each and every single time it's used in a rational context. Mirco-evolution therefore demands evolution to be occuring, and yet it simply isn't. The observed changes demonstrate a genetic free-fall away from diversity potential, so it would have to be called micro-devolution to match the observations, not micro-evolution. I totally agree that employing these terms are a total concession to evolution.

while I agree that the overwhelming physical evidence of speciation points to evolution, you are totally correct that if one is to argue against a point, one should understand it. Most of the time creationists come off looking very ignorant of the science of evolution. That hurts their argument. Jerry, I'm curious as to how speciation would point to evolution? I've pointed out to you before, almost no creationsits believe that there were tigers, lions, cougars, cheetahs, etc. on the ark, but that there was some pair of cats with a genome that had great potential for genetic diversity and since then speciation has occured to give us the diversity we see amoung the various cat species today. If both explainations require speciation to be viable, how can it be evidence for one of them over and against the other? But I thought speciation is evidence of macroevolution, which many argue does not occur. That term makes no sense to me. As you know, biological evolution is the theory that changes at a cellualar level account for the biological diversity we see today. All evolution would be microevolution and macroevolution would be microevolution over time. It's simply redundant to use those unnecessary qualifiers. But if the changes occuring in the genome are not contributing to biological diversity, but instead are limiting the potential for the expression of diversity (which is my case), then it's not evolution on either a micro or macro level.

while I agree that the overwhelming physical evidence of speciation points to evolution, you are totally correct that if one is to argue against a point, one should understand it. Most of the time creationists come off looking very ignorant of the science of evolution. That hurts their argument. Jerry, I'm curious as to how speciation would point to evolution? I've pointed out to you before, almost no creationsits believe that there were tigers, lions, cougars, cheetahs, etc. on the ark, but that there was some pair of cats with a genome that had great potential for genetic diversity and since then speciation has occured to give us the diversity we see amoung the various cat species today. If both explainations require speciation to be viable, how can it be evidence for one of them over and against the other?

Some seem to think that evidence of speciation should be evidence against the Bible. Evidence for evolution seems to be a deal-breaker for creationists. Creationists want to close their eyes, plug their ears and ignore obvious evidence for biological evolution. Actually, there's almost no creationist who thinks so. Most YEC's affirm speciation and/or some level of common descent. Almost no YECs think that there were lions, tigers, tabbies, bobcats, lynx, cougars, leopards, cheetahs, panthers, etc. all on the ark, but that there was some cat with a genome that contained great potential for genetic diversity, and the different breeds that came forth eventually speciated. Natural Selection selects from out of what's available in the genome, and a population specializes. As they do, they lose genetic potential for diversity, which is why all breeds of dogs came from common wolf-like proto dogs, and yet you can't get a pair of bulldogs to give birth to a great dane. The only way to tap back into the genetic potential of the great dane is to breed the bulldogs back with them. So you lose potential for diversity as natural selection and mutation ravages the genome until a population speciates, putting it out of reach of the large genetic pool. But YEC's just get jumpy because of how frequently evolutionists presume everything to be proof of their concept of common descent from a common cellular origin around 3.5 billion years ago. We find the bones of rabbits and horses and we’re told hoorah, evolution confirmed and the final nail has been sunk into the coffin of Biblical Creationism! Even though it’s later disconfirmed as a progression. We find pictures of fetuses that look like they have tails and we’re told hoorah, evolution confirmed and the final nail has been sunk into the coffin of Biblical Creationism! Even though it’s disconfirmed that embryos follow some chain of evolutionary progression from earlier forms in the womb. We find Lucy and we’re told hoorah, evolution confirmed and the final nail has been sunk into the coffin of Biblical Creationism! Even though some hard tissue of an ape trapped in sedimentary deposits is no real problem for YEC. We find IDA and we’re told hoorah, evolution confirmed and the final nail has been sunk into the coffin of Biblical Creationism! evolution confirmed! Even though some hard tissue of a lemur trapped in sedimentary deposits is no real problem for YEC. We find that RNA can do some replicating apart from a cell and we’re told hoorah, evolution confirmed and the final nail has been sunk into the coffin of Biblical Creationism! Even though it doesn’t begin to deal with the complexities of a cell all coming together by chance. We find yeast that bonds and starts to act multicellular and we’re told hoorah, evolution confirmed and the final nail has been sunk into the coffin of Biblical Creationism! Even though there are known strands of yeast that have already been confirmed to have that capacity. It just goes on that this supposed support for evolution is crammed down our throats only to be abandon for the next ‘real thing’ when the last one didn’t work out, and we’re always supposed to believe that this one is the one. So, I actually agree that lots of creationists I know do end up plugging their ears and closing their eyes, but sometimes it seems like it’s the only way to keep the propaganda out.

No, I waited until after I gave you the answer to start splitting hairs. But if all you wanted was an unbiased answer, all we want is an unbiased request. Took us this long to even start to get it. Why the need to split hairs at all? You gave a good answer, then couldn't leave it alone? What's driving that? I've gone out of my way not to turn this into a mess of a debate thread. Jerry, I think you need to take an ojective look at what's happened here. You've been splitting hairs yourself by objecting to Trisen's wording (thinking it implied judgement), to my use of the word 'confirmed' in relation to a hypothesis, etc. You want to split hairs. You want to split them over whether or not our responses are objective enough for you. Splitting hairs isn't the problem - you just want to control which hairs get split, when and how. You say you came here to press us to see if you could get an unbaised answer (which you did from both Trisen and myself) - if it's so important to amass unbias responses then just ask the question in an unbiased way. The thread's only as messy as you've facilitated.

No, I waited until after I gave you the answer to start splitting hairs. But if all you wanted was an unbiased answer, all we want is an unbiased request. Took us this long to even start to get it.

How do you define "confirm[ing]" a hypothesis? That's a standard term in science - When the findings are consistent with the projections of the hypothesis, the hypothesis is confirmed to have empirical support.

Actually that’s a category error. Spiritual truths are immaterial and empirical evidence is material. Just because our moral obligations are subject to our perceptions doesn't mean that material things are. Like, it may be wrong for some people to eat meat sacrificed to idols, but not for others, depending on their perceptions and therefore conscience. But is the law of gravity subject to our individual perceptions? See how it's just different categories? ========================================================================== The error here is that one is arguing that material and immaterial do not affect one another which is an obvious fault. No, I'm not saying that. I'm a substance dualist but my immaterial will has only been given jurisdiction over my body. See, I'll prove it. I'm going to make gravity stop working now. See, it didn't work. But I can raise my arm just by thinking about it, and my thoughts are immaterial. Anyways, you probably get the idea, but I think we've cluttered this thread up with tangents enough. God bless.

Actually that’s a category error. Spiritual truths are immaterial and empirical evidence is material. Just because our moral obligations are subject to our perceptions doesn't mean that material things are. Like, it may be wrong for some people to eat meat sacrificed to idols, but not for others, depending on their perceptions and therefore conscience. But is the law of gravity subject to our individual perceptions? See how it's just different categories? I figured someone would use this type of a rebuttal because logic dictates that it must be errant if it cannot be applied in every facit of the creation. Pendulums have two extreme ends where the truth lies in the middle somewhere. The greatest logical errors are made by the smartest people. Gravity only applies to those whom God says it applies. Jesus was not one of them. He had abilities far surpassing everyday people based not only on what he believed but his faithfulness to those beliefs. Faith without works is dead. Jesus did not believe a man could not walk on water. Or that fish and bread could not be multiplied by his hands. It is very dangerous territory to tread upon. Do I have any real proof to substantiate the claim either way? No. My faith and faithfulness has never been to a place where I have personally had power to make the material world obey my commands. Every time I have attempted any such thing I have seen doubt within my self that has caused my so called act of faith to become a test instead and therefore has negated my results. I repeat. I do not have the answer. Hey Gary, Gravity did apply to Jesus - just not during a miracle. I don't think it's all as dangerous as you might think - check it out. God transcends nature. He created it. God is logical and orderly, and creation is a testamony of the nature of the Creator (Romans 1:20-25) - with me so far? So nature is orderly and consistent. God, who transcends nature, can suspend nature. He could make us do so too. We, however, can't transcend nature, so our will can't effect anything outside our bodies, without God. These kinds of answers aren't all that big a deal and don't do anything to contradict scripture. God bless.

Actually that’s a category error. Spiritual truths are immaterial and empirical evidence is material. Just because our moral obligations are subject to our perceptions doesn't mean that material things are. Like, it may be wrong for some people to eat meat sacrificed to idols, but not for others, depending on their perceptions and therefore conscience. But is the law of gravity subject to our individual perceptions? See how it's just different categories?

The only thing that can be proven is math. Hypothesis and Theories can only be disproven. If a hypothesis stands up to rigorous testing and is found to accurately predict results, it becomes a theory. I explicitly stated defining it does not validate it, and I explicitly asked for creationists' understanding of how science defines evolution. Maybe I should have said mainstream secular science. There we go! Yes, please. That qualification will do. Thanks! And as far as what you said about "The only thing that can be proven is math. Hypothesis and Theories can only be disproven." You'll notice that I didn't use the word "proven" at all, so you seemed to have been responding to what you assumed I said instead of what I actually said.

I fully understand and acknowledge that Jerry. But I need to you actually read what it is that I'm asking you and address my point, since you seem to be responding what you assume my point is instead of actually acknowledging my point. So I'll just repeat it here: A scientific hypothosis itself has to be confirmed or disconfirmed empricially in order for it to be what the science says. If we are just tasked to define the theory but not comment on its veracity, then so too do you have to refrain from weighing in on its veracity so please refrain from saying that the objective definition of the theory has anything to do with what science says about the theory. That's all I'm asking. I understand what you are saying...again, I offered what I understood regarding the creation story in the bible. I think too much comment on my part would constitute debate which wasn't the intent of the thread. If a creatioinist does not want to comment here because of the parameters of what I asked, that is, of course, their perrogative. Jerry, since you're still taking about the creation story you really don't understand what I'm saying. You say you want us to speak unbiasedly about evolution. That's all I want from you. Can I challenge you to respond just to the next two things I've been repeating, please: A scientific hypothosis itself has to be confirmed or disconfirmed empricially in order for it to be what the science says. If we are just tasked to define the theory but not comment on its veracity, then so too do you have to refrain from weighing in on its veracity so please refrain from saying that the objective definition of the theory has anything to do with what science says about the theory.

Stay with me here Jerry, I fully understand and acknowledge that. But I need to you actually read what it is that I'm asking you and address my point, since you seem to be responding what you assume my point is instead of actually acknowledging my point. So I'll just repeat it here: A scientific hypothosis itself has to be confirmed or disconfirmed empricially in order for it to be what the science says. If we are just tasked to define the theory but not comment on its veracity, then so too do you have to refrain from weighing in on its veracity so please refrain from saying that the objective definition of the theory has anything to do with what science says about the theory. That's all I'm asking. I'm not saying that you failed to do that in your example of creationism. I'm saying you're failing to refrain from commenting on the veracity of the theory of evolution. The way you're talking about evolution is biased and suggestive of the veracity of the theory.

I acknowledged I appreceiated your answer a couple times. Science is unbiased, I'd admit scientists often are. I think I've asked a simple question. I'm not looking for someone to win the thread, I just want to get some creationists views on what they perceive the opposing views to be. As I mentioned, it is difficult to argue against something when you do not understand it. I'm really not trying to debate anyone here. I fully understand your request and your concerns Jerry, but I don't think you're actually reading my posts since you seem to continue to miss the point. I'm not referring to whether or not scientists are biased. I'm saying that your request is worded in a loaded way. I can see, and am sensitive to your request, but can you please refrain from wording it in a way that suggests that if we provide an unbiased definition that we are conceding that such a definition is therefore scientific. A scientific hypothosis itself has to be confirmed or disconfirmed empricially in order for it to be what the science says. If we are just tasked to define the theory but not comment on its veracity, then so too do you have to refrain from weighing in on its veracity so please refrain from saying that the objective definition of the theory has anything to do with what science says about the theory. That's all I'm asking.

To try to get the thread back on topic...Can some creationist here give me their portrayal of what mainstream science says about evolution without creationist commentary? thanks Jerry, you admitted that I've already satisfied your request. Now that I've provided you with your request, could you please do me the favour of acknowledging mine? I pointed out that your request was actually loaded. You've asked us to provide an unbiased definition of evolution (which I did) but by qualifying that you just want us to admit what the science says is the unbiased definition of evolution without comment on our perception of the veracity of the theory, you've biased the request so that if when we provide the definition it's like we're admitting it has been empirically confirmed. But here's the thing, science didn't provide that definition you liked - I did... and science has disconfirmed that definition. All I'm trying to get you to acknowledge is that it was a loaded request – it’s like you've asked us to admit that science shows that women feel pain so could be please stop making excuses for beating our wives. We admit that women feel pain, but not that we beat our wives and we have to be able to make the distinction, otherwise you just win by definition. I have no problem articulating any theory with which I disagree. If you want me to articulate the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics, I can do that too. I seek to accurately represent all views irrespective of whether or not I find them compelling. All I’m asking is that you extend the same courtesy.

Hope you see the point...I was able to talk about the creation verses without giving any commentary. I was looking for creationists to do the same. I needed to point out where I'm coming from to highlight the objective nature of my post. I did not comment on the creation story. Now, can you all comment on evolution objectively (we'll assume you are a creationist unless you say differently)? Yep, I saw the point. I am a creationist, but I actually already responded with a definition that you seemed to be pretty happy with - it was the one about all biological diversity being accounted for by unguided natural forces acting on a common celluar origin. Would you like me to elucidate any part of the theory further?

Nope, it was this thread

where in this thread have I offered commentary? Hi Jerry, You’ll notice that I already answered that question in the post you're quoting. When you include qualifiers in your request such as “the evidence of evolution as overwhelming” and “just trying to see if anyone here is willing to give a non-biased view on what the science says” that is not objective definition but commentary that runs contrary to the assertions of creationists, thereby inviting response.

Hey Jerry, it's a bit of a tall order to ask for an objective definition with no commentary when you're inputting your own commentary in your request. When you say that the evidence is in favour of evolution, or you just want us to admit what the science says, that's not objective definition but commentary which invites response. I have no problem providing objective definitions, but you're opening the discussion wider by your own commentary.

haha thanks Tristen...you are permitted to post anything you want here. I was just trying to keep the thread from going too far off the rails. I like your answer except for the "overly-simplistically" comment which implies some judgment... the second post falls into the evidence for one thing can be evidence for everything category. Evidence for everything is evidence of nothing. Hindus, Muslims etc could all use our evidence to back up their claims. Where do we draw the line. I say we draw it just short of magic... I think you may have misinterpreted a couple things in Tristen's post. First, the comment about evolution being overly simplified in its definition was not in reference to the theory being overly simplified, but the definition of the theory as simply any kind of hereditary change over time. That unqualified definition alone does not necessarily entail what evolutionary biologists mean by evolution, and by that definition I would be an evolutionist, even though I believe in special creation some thousands of years ago. As for the evidence being common to all, the point there is evolutionists often make a category error when referring to evidence. We all look at the same rock formations and fossils and that is the evidence. The evolutionary interpretation of the evidence is what people usually mean when they say the evidence favours evolution. While I agree with what Tristen said, I'd go a step further and say that while there are individual forensic scenarios that creationists have trouble accounting for, there are just as many that are equally problematic for the evolutionist, but the body of evidence is vastly more consistent with YEC, whether in the strata or under the microscope. In fact, the probability of human evolution by unguided forces was calculated by Barrow and Tippler in their book The Cosmological Anthropic Principle, to be so improbable that the sun would many times over have ceased to be a main sequence star before it could ever occur. Therefore, evolution could only occur through some kind of divine intervention and would therefore not be natural but miraculous. This is what many theists believe but I think that the enterprise of science must rely on methodological naturalism, and therefore evolution is unscientific.

The theory of biological evolution is the theory that all biological diversity can be accounted for by unguided forces (most notably random mutation and natural selection) acting on a common cellular origin.