Let's Discuss Scientific Objections to Evolution

[The Barbarian]

4 hours ago, Tristen said:

I am absolutely not “wrong”. The paper may be speculating as to how the speciation occurred, but it is not reporting that any speciation was observed

Yes, you are wrong.   Perhaps you imagine that speciation is a special moment when suddenly a new species appears.  That's not case.  It's a gradual change.   At one time that species did not exist, and over time, biologists observed a new species emerging.   Rarely do you get an instant speciation, although that has also been observed, in the case of O. gigas speciating from O. lamarckana, in a polyploidy event, in a single generation.  So even by your rather unusual criteria, speciation has been observed.

4 hours ago, Tristen said:

Typically speaking, we've never had a problem with the process of speciation.

That's not what Answers in Genesis says:

Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the “fixity” or “immutability” of species. According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today. The Bible nowhere teaches that species are fixed and unchanging.

https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/

Creationists have now generally accepted the evolution of new species, genera, and usually families.   But that's not how it was when I was an undergraduate.   They denied any evolution at all.

5 hours ago, Tristen said:

I don't know who Kurt Wise is. But I'd be happy to take a look at any examples you'd care to provide and argue for.

He's a paleontologist, and a YE creationist.   Teaches at a fundamentalist college.  And he recognizes the evidence for evolution in numerous series of transitional forms in the fossil record.  He just prefers to believe his particular reading of Genesis instead:

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.

...

At this point in time, the largest challenge from the stratomorphic intermediate record appears to this author to come from the fossil record of the whales. There is a strong stratigraphic series of archaeocete genera claimed by Gingerich60(Ambulocetus, Rhodocetus, and Prozeuglodon[or the similar-aged Basilosaurus]61) followed on the one hand by modern mysticetes,62 and on the other hand by the family Squalodontidae and then modern odontocetes.63 That same series is also a morphological series: Ambulocetuswith the largest hind legs;64-66 Rhodocetus with hindlegs one- third smaller;67Prozeuglodon with 6 inch hindlegs;68 and the remaining whales with virtually no to no hind legs: toothed mysticetes before non-toothed baleen whales;69 the squalodontid odontocetes with telescoped skull but triangular teeth;70 and the modern odontocetes with telescoped skulls and conical teeth. This series of fossils is thus a very powerful stratomorphic series. Because the land mammal-to-whale transition (theorized by macroevolutionary theory and evidenced by the fossil record) is a land-to-sea transition, the relative order of land mammals, archaeocetes, and modern whales is not explainable in the conventional Flood geology method (transgressing Flood waters). Furthermore, whale fossils are only known in Cenozoic (and thus post-Flood) sediments.71 This seems to run counter to the intuitive expectation that the whales should have been found in or even throughout Flood sediments.At present creation theory has no good explanation for the fossil record of whales.

https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf

Wise expresses confidence that although there is no creationist explanation for these many transitional series, there will eventually be one.   

Another YE biologist who willingly faces the evidence is Todd Wood:

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you.

http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/truth-about-evolution.html

Even more compelling, we see no transitionals were there shouldn't be any.

5 hours ago, Tristen said:

I don't know what you mean here (perhaps examples would be helpful).

We see feathered dinosaurs, but we don't see feathered mammals.   We see fish with lungs, but no arthropods with lungs.   We see ascidians with notochords, but no mollusks with notochords.   No transitional forms exist where evolutionary theory says there should be none.   But as Kurt Wise admits, there are many, many transitionals where the theory predicted them, most of them found long after they were predicted.

5 hours ago, Tristen said:

But while we are on the topic, the very concept of “transitional forms” has been equivocated from Darwin's original meaning. When Darwin lamented the lack of “transitional forms”, he was speaking to structural transitions (e.g. the putative forms between scales and feathers). He was not speaking to any fossil that can be squeezed between other fossils on the putative tree of life. If he meant that, his claim would make no sense (since the tree of life was also his invention).

You're wrong about that.  for example, we have found the predicted fish with functional walking legs.   The predicted transitional anatomy between wasps and ants and roaches and termites have been identified.   There's a long, long list. of these, mostly fossil structures.    Would you like to see some more?  As Wise admits, these are very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory.

5 hours ago, Tristen said:

When I say YEC, I simply mean I accept the Genesis account of history as it is written

If you accept it as written, then you would not call it a history at all.  As St. Augustine noted, they are not in any way literal 24 hour days.

5 hours ago, Tristen said:

But does the scripture really state as a fact that “the sun orbited the Earth”?

No, it doesn't.   And it doesn't say that the days of Genesis are literal days, and it doesn't say that all organisms were individually created rather than evolved.   Those are assumptions people made, just as Luther assumed that the figurative passages about the sun going around the Earth were literal.

5 hours ago, Tristen said:

My point about Luther is that, he, like me, believed in the historical interpretation of Genesis.

Except for the motions of the Sun and the Earth.   Among other things.

5 hours ago, Tristen said:

I was raised secular, with an exclusively secular education.

I was raised as a Christian, with a Christian education.  So I had no fall into creationism.    If you accept Him and His creation entirely, things like evolution will no longer trouble you.

 

 

[Tristen]

15 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Yes, you are wrong.   Perhaps you imagine that speciation is a special moment when suddenly a new species appears.  That's not case.  It's a gradual change.   ...

“Yes, you are wrong. Perhaps you imagine that speciation is a special moment when suddenly a new species appears. That's not case. It's a gradual change. At one time that species did not exist, and over time, biologists observed a new species emerging”

So when you say “observed a new species emerging”, you don't actually mean “observed” the process of speciation – which was the claim of the creationists your quoted - i.e. the claim you were initially disputing. What you apparently now mean by "observed speciation" is 'a report of a previously unknown species' – because that's all your provided paper did – which I demonstrated by quoting your provided source. So you are Equivocating (logic fallacy 1) arguments.

And now, even though I have previously, explicitly stated that speciation is a gradual process, you are trying to set up a Strawman (logic fallacy 2) to imply that I don't understand what speciation entails. That is not only irrational, but dishonest. Instead of being fair-minded, you are doubling down on your obvious error -which is a waste of everyone's time.

 

“Rarely do you get an instant speciation, although that has also been observed, in the case of O. gigas speciating from O. lamarckana, in a polyploidy event, in a single generation. So even by your rather unusual criteria, speciation has been observed”

You mean the “rather unusual criteria” that you dishonestly attributed to me?

 

“ Typically speaking, we've never had a problem with the process of speciation.

That's not what Answers in Genesis says:

Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the “fixity” or “immutability” of species. According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today. The Bible nowhere teaches that species are fixed and unchanging.

https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/ ”

So firstly, you claimed that, until recently, YE creationists typically believed in 'fixity of species'. Secondly, you claimed that YE creationism is a new interpretation of scripture – pioneered by George Price (born 1870).

As to your first claim, the logic doesn't follow (i.e. is Non-Sequitur – logic fallacy 3). The fact that a “false idea” once “crept into the church” does not logically support the conclusion that YE creationists typically taught that “false idea” until recently.

As to your second claim, this quote tells us that this “false idea” existed “Before the time of Charles Darwin” (born 1809: “Origin of Species” published in 1859). So if you are attributing this “false idea” to YE creationists, then you have to acknowledge that YE creationism existed “Before the time of Charles Darwin”, and ergo, “Before the time” of George Price.

 

“Creationists have now generally accepted the evolution of new species, genera, and usually families. But that's not how it was when I was an undergraduate. They denied any evolution at all”

I think you are Generalising (logic fallacy 4). Perhaps the creationists you encountered as “an undergraduate” were not across the informed creationist position. I'm certainly not claiming that no creationist has ever held this “false idea”. But your impression that this was typical until recently is itself a “false”, unjustified narrative. As a creationist approaching 30 years, I've only ever heard from primary-source creationist organisations (i.e. those respected as authorities by creationists) that 'fixity of species' is a “false idea” which is not supported by scripture.

 

“ I don't know who Kurt Wise is. But I'd be happy to take a look at any examples you'd care to provide and argue for.

He's a paleontologist, and a YE creationist. Teaches at a fundamentalist college. And he recognizes the evidence for evolution in numerous series of transitional forms in the fossil record. He just prefers to believe his particular reading of Genesis instead:

...

https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf

Wise expresses confidence that although there is no creationist explanation for these many transitional series, there will eventually be one”

There is nothing new here. There has always been a “creationist explanation” for these finds. Let's consider;

Explanation 1 – If we assume that all life is related through a common ancestor (via countless generations of evolution and speciation), then we can take every example of life we find and place it on a relational 'tree of life'; where similarities are interpreted as closer relatedness, and dissimilarities are interpreted as distant relatedness.

Explanation 2 – If we assume God created various kinds of creatures independently (each of which subsequently speciated into a variety of forms), then we can interpret extensive similarities as relatedness back to the created kind, and overt dissimilarities as belonging to a different kind.

All of the same facts are equally consistent with both stories. You have allowed yourself to be convinced that the secular explanation has more validity. But the facts don't warrant that obligation to the secular story.

 

“We see feathered dinosaurs, but we don't see feathered mammals. We see fish with lungs, but no arthropods with lungs. We see ascidians with notochords, but no mollusks with notochords. No transitional forms exist where evolutionary theory says there should be none. But as Kurt Wise admits, there are many, many transitionals where the theory predicted them, most of them found long after they were predicted”

This is approaching circular reasoning. If a story is formulated around an abundance of existing facts, then it stands to reason that most future facts will fit the story. It's also an Appeal to Ignorance. I don't know whether these fallacies are his (Kurt Wise's) or yours.

 

“ But while we are on the topic, the very concept of “transitional forms” has been equivocated from Darwin's original meaning. When Darwin lamented the lack of “transitional forms”, he was speaking to structural transitions (e.g. the putative forms between scales and feathers). He was not speaking to any fossil that can be squeezed between other fossils on the putative tree of life. If he meant that, his claim would make no sense (since the tree of life was also his invention).

You're wrong about that. for example, we have found the predicted fish with functional walking legs. The predicted transitional anatomy between wasps and ants and roaches and termites have been identified. There's a long, long list. of these, mostly fossil structures. Would you like to see some more?”

I'd like to see even one example. A “Fish with functional walking legs” is not a 'transitional form' in the way that Darwin defined the term. I'd further like your examples to be referenced so I can assess the claims for myself.

 

“As Wise admits, these are very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory”

I don't care what “Wise admits”. I don't know what “very good evidence” means in any objective sense. Show me the research.

 

“When I say YEC, I simply mean I accept the Genesis account of history as it is written

If you accept it as written, then you would not call it a history at all. As St. Augustine noted, they are not in any way literal 24 hour days”

I'm not talking about Augustine's opinion; I'm talking about Genesis – as I read it. The text says they were sequential “days”; each with an evening and morning. Why, from the text, should I assume they were anything other than “days” - i.e. according to the plain definition of “days”?

 

“And it doesn't say that the days of Genesis are literal days”

Lol. Is this how communication works now? We can no longer just say what we mean and expect people to understand. If we mean something literally, we have to specify, “I mean this literally”. Otherwise those receiving our communication are free to take what we say symbolically.

Where in the Bible does God ever specify that we should take His word literally? Can I now dismiss all of the Bible as symbolic?

 

“and it doesn't say that all organisms were individually created rather than evolved”

Are we still talking about 'fixity of species'?

Genesis teaches that God created different kinds of creatures on different days – each of which reproduces after it's own “kind”. Why, from the text, should I assume it means anything other than what it plainly says?

 

“Those are assumptions people made, just as Luther assumed that the figurative passages about the sun going around the Earth were literal”

Does the Bible actually say that the sun goes around the earth? The Bible does say that God created in “six days”.

 

“ My point about Luther is that, he, like me, believed in the historical interpretation of Genesis.

Except for the motions of the Sun and the Earth”

Where does Genesis talk about “the motions of the Sun and the Earth”. Your statement here doesn't make sense.

 

“If you accept Him and His creation entirely, things like evolution will no longer trouble you”

Evolution doesn't “trouble” me whatsoever.

I trust God's Word without compromise. Having investigated the issue thoroughly (including formal education), I have found no logical obligation to the secular story. Anyone who presumes to claim otherwise had better come with a solid rational argument if they expect me to take their claim seriously. I will happily hear and give fair consideration to arguments. In the meantime, I will continue to trust God's Word as He communicated it – i.e. without subjugating it's interpretation under external, secular authorities.

 

[The Barbarian]

8 hours ago, Tristen said:

So when you say “observed a new species emerging”, you don't actually mean “observed” the process of speciation [/quote]

Which would require an single event in time, which has been observed but it not the typical case.  Normally the speciation, as in the case of D. miranda takes place over time, and is observed over many months.

– which was the claim of the creationists your quoted - i.e. the claim you were initially disputing. What you apparently

now mean by "observed speciation" is 'a report of a previously unknown species' – because that's all your provided paper did –

No.   It reported the speciation from an existing species.    But even using your rather odd concept of speciation, that has been observed, in a single generation.   So moot point.

 

8 hours ago, Tristen said:

Typically speaking, we've never had a problem with the process of speciation.

 

8 hours ago, Tristen said:

That's not what Answers in Genesis says:

Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the “fixity” or “immutability” of species. According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today. The Bible nowhere teaches that species are fixed and unchanging.

https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/ ”

 

8 hours ago, Tristen said:

So firstly, you claimed that, until recently, YE creationists typically believed in 'fixity of species'. Secondly, you claimed that YE creationism is a new interpretation of scripture – pioneered by George Price (born 1870).

Now you're equivocating.    First, it's not my claim.   Second that's not AIG's claim either; they said "into the church" (basically creationists).   Not YE creationists.    And yes, YE creationists did believe in fixity of species, even though many of them have now conceded that Darwin was right.

Creationists have now generally accepted the evolution of new species, genera, and usually families. But that's not how it was when I was an undergraduate. They denied any evolution at all.

8 hours ago, Tristen said:

I think you are Generalising (logic fallacy 4). Perhaps the creationists you encountered as “an undergraduate” were not across the informed creationist position.

Ah, so the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, um?   Even AIG admits the fact.  C'mon.

8 hours ago, Tristen said:

I'm not talking about Augustine's opinion; I'm talking about Genesis – as I read it.

Yes.  He seems to be the better theologian in this case.  Sorry.

8 hours ago, Tristen said:

Genesis teaches that God created different kinds of creatures on different days – each of which reproduces after it's own “kind”.

Well. let's take a look...

Genesis 1:²⁵ And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Nothing about "reproducing according to kind."  Nor does God describe the process by which each kind was created.   You and I are created by God, but He uses natural means to create our bodies.  

9 hours ago, Tristen said:

Lol. Is this how communication works now?

Always has.   The text itself says that the days of creation could not be periods of time.    Even Augustine admits that they were something very different than actual days.

Wise expresses confidence that although there is no creationist explanation for these many transitional series, there will eventually be one”

9 hours ago, Tristen said:

There is nothing new here. There has always been a “creationist explanation” for these finds. Let's consider;

Explanation 1 – If we assume that all life is related through a common ancestor (via countless generations of evolution and speciation), then we can take every example of life we find and place it on a relational 'tree of life'; where similarities are interpreted as closer relatedness, and dissimilarities are interpreted as distant relatedness.

Explanation 2 – If we assume God created various kinds of creatures independently (each of which subsequently speciated into a variety of forms), then we can interpret extensive similarities as relatedness back to the created kind, and overt dissimilarities as belonging to a different kind.

All of the same facts are equally consistent with both stories. You have allowed yourself to be convinced that the secular explanation has more validity. But the facts don't warrant that obligation to the secular story.

Your problem is that evolutionary theory accurately predicted the many, many transitional forms, and as Wise admits, creationism did not.   And your second rationalization collapses because of the data Wise cites.   There is not hard distinction between "kinds."

Even worse for creationism,we find no transitional forms where there shouldn't be any, if things evolved from a common ancestor.

And to make it even worse, genetic data links all living thing in to the same family tree that anatomical data does.  

I am aware that some creationists have argued that God made it look as though everything evolved to test our faith.   Since God is not dishonest, I don't think that's something a Christian can accept.

But let's test your belief a little.   Name me two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if we have any transitional forms.    Pick several cases, if you like.

9 hours ago, Tristen said:

Does the Bible actually say that the sun goes around the earth?

Ecclesiastes 1:5 The sun rises, and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises.

And of course, the Bible says that the Earth does not move:

Psalms 104:5 Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.

9 hours ago, Tristen said:

Evolution doesn't “trouble” me whatsoever.

It's caused you to do all sorts of rationalizations about scripture to avoid accepting the way He created living things.

Set all your rationalizations aside and just let it be His way.  

 

[DeighAnn]

Needed to take a break from where I was so I thought I would jump in here for A post. 

No need to tell me I am all wrong.  Been there and have already been told there were dinosaurs on the ark.  (stomach still gets to hurting whenever I think about it, don't think I have ever laughed that hard or long)

So, I just have 2 cents to give.  Read like the first 15 pages and didn't see these points and realized quickly, you all are WAY to scientific for me so
even though most likely have been given, I was a little rusty myself so thought I would refresh my own mind and maybe a thing or two is new.  If not, PLease Excuse the interruption
and be nice, as I am a part of the body too. 

For evolution to in fact be true, there would STILL have to be walking around today, those more and those less evolved BUT WHAT MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE IS kind after kind.  GOD DOESN'T EVEN LIKE FABRICS TO MIX.    Since we see NO 1/2 this 1/2 that or 3/4 and 1/4 you get the picture makes Evolution the most stupid thing man has ever conceived or considered.  (probably wasn't man anyhow)

Theology is the study of Gods Word
Science is the study of Gods Works

The universe and earth are billions of years old.  God didn't sit around until 14,000 years ago and then "STart".  

Dinosaurs bones are found all over, NOT ONE man.  Yeah, Yeah, a bone part they "claim"  but NOT ONE COMPLETE one yet??  (Sure Satan will have one or two or a bunch found soon, if it so fits his plan)  So for sure Dinosaurs lived in the flesh upon the earth while man did not live in the flesh. 

Satan DID NOT show up in the garden as a "created evil" being.  At least not if you believe in God and His Word.   

Satan was created with the most beauty and wisdom and all the rest ever created.  WHY?  cause that is what it would take to be a sweat drop of competition to God. Still I would bet they were the best of friends for "ever?" 

BUT he went from THAT to the Serpent at SOME POINT BEFORE THE GARDEN.  LIKE IT OR NOT, DOESN'T MATTER, IT IS JUST A FACT GIVEN TO US BY THE WORD OF GOD.  

GOD DID NOT create the world null and void and in darkness.  How do you know?

Isaiah 45:18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God Himself that formed the earth and made it; He hath established it, He created it not in vain, He formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.  (I did see Job quoted, so covered)
 

It BECAME that way.  How do you know? 

1961  hayah  fall out come to pass become

Genesis 1:2 And the earth BECAME/was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

When did that happen?

Jeremiah 4:19 My bowels, my bowels! I am pained at my very heart; my heart maketh a noise in me; I cannot hold my peace, because thou hast heard, O my soul, the sound of the trumpet, the alarm of war.

Jeremiah 4:20 Destruction upon destruction is cried; for the whole land is spoiled: SUDDENLY are my tents spoiled, and my curtains in a moment.

Jeremiah 4:21 How long shall I see the standard, and hear the sound of the trumpet?

Jeremiah 4:22 For my people is foolish, they have not known me; they are sottish children, and they have none understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge.

Jeremiah 4:23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.

tohu: formlessness, confusion, unreality, emptiness
I BEHELD THE EARTH AND INDEED WITHOUT FORM AND VOID AND THE HEAVENS AND NO LIGHT.  

Jeremiah 4:24 I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.

Jeremiah 4:25 I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.

Jeremiah 4:26 I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger.

Jeremiah 4:27 For thus hath the LORD said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end.

Jeremiah 4:28 For this shall the earth mourn, and the heavens above be black; because I have spoken it, I have purposed it, and will not repent, neither will I turn back from it.

Jeremiah 4:29 The whole city shall flee for the noise of the horsemen and bowmen; they shall go into thickets, and climb up upon the rocks: every city shall be forsaken, and not a man dwell therein.

Jeremiah 4:30 And when thou art spoiled, what wilt thou do? Though thou clothest thyself with crimson, though thou deckest thee with ornaments of gold, though thou rentest thy face with painting, in vain shalt thou make thyself fair; thy lovers will despise thee, they will seek thy life.

Jeremiah 4:31 For I have heard a voice as of a woman in travail, and the anguish as of her that bringeth forth her first child, the voice of the daughter of Zion, that bewaileth herself, that spreadeth her hands, saying, Woe is me now! for my soul is wearied because of murderers.

I KNOW, I KNOW,  I KNOW, NOAHS FLOOD .   NOT.  

BUT you all are scientists.  COMPARE AND CONTRAST DISECT AND ANALYZE and see what you think.  Just planting a seed, if it be Gods Will. Did a little high lightening for those who may have petrified hearts when it comes to this subject.    

THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME get shake out the cob webs.  Have fun.  

[Tristen]

19 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Which would require an single event in time, which has been observed but it not the typical case ...

“ So when you say “observed a new species emerging”, you don't actually mean “observed” the process of speciation [/quote]

Which would require an single event in time”

You are the one claiming speciation was “observed”. I was simply asking for an example.

 

“which has been observed but it not the typical case. Normally the speciation, as in the case of D. miranda takes place over time, and is observed over many month”

Except that the speciation was not “observed” in the case of D. miranda.

 

“It reported the speciation from an existing species”

This is a lie.

All the paper claims is that the two mentioned species are “related”. So at-best, you can claim is that the paper assumes speciation – but the paper makes no specific mention of speciation. And certainly no claim of speciation being “observed”.

 

“But even using your rather odd concept of speciation, that has been observed, in a single generation”

So you continue to perpetuate your Strawman of my position – i.e. more intentional dishonesty.

 

“So moot point”

It is a “moot point” for several reasons – but not the reasons you suppose;

- Initially, you claimed that creationists taught 'fixity of species' until recently – which I contested.

- Your response was to provide quotes from creationists who claimed a lack of observed speciation – whom you claimed to be “wrong”.

* “Moot Point” 1 – Observed speciation is unrelated to 'fixity of species'. Therefore your response was logically irrelevant to my objection.

* “Moot point” 2 – Creationism has no problem with speciation. So even if these creationists are “wrong”, it is irrelevant to the tenability of the creationist position

- Then, out of sincere curiosity, I asked for an example of observed speciation. But the example you provided was not of observed speciation. When I pointed out that your example was not of observed speciation, you started pretending I didn't understand how speciation works.

* “Moot point” 3 – If it is your intention to defend your position with such blatant dishonesty, why are you wasting my time? I am happy to give courteous consideration to your arguments, but you are also obliged to argue with integrity. I have little interest in win-at-all-cost debates.

 

“Now you're equivocating. First, it's not my claim”

My apologies. So who should I be responding to?

 

“Second that's not AIG's claim either; they said "into the church" (basically creationists). Not YE creationists”

So your claim is that YE creationists typically taught 'fixity of species' until recently. Your evidence is a quote that is not referring to YE creationists. Help me out here.

 

“And yes, YE creationists did believe in fixity of species, even though many of them have now conceded that Darwin was right”

Do you mean all YE creationists once believed this, or merely that some misinformed creationists have believed this. Let's use precise language to avoid Equivocation.

Carl Linnaeus (who invented the classification system we use in biology) proposed that new species formed from their created ancestor before “Darwin” was even born. So the concept of speciation from an ancestor group is not Darwin's idea.

 

“ I think you are Generalising (logic fallacy 4). Perhaps the creationists you encountered as “an undergraduate” were not across the informed creationist position.

Ah, so the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, um? Even AIG admits the fact. C'mon. ”

What fact does “AIG admit”? I have readily admitted that there are uninformed creationists who still think in terms of 'fixity of species'. But you are trying to imply that this has been a typical position of YE creationists until recently. According to my experience and investigations, that is untrue. And your “AIG” quote doesn't support your claim at all.

Recognising that there is a spectrum of knowledge in any discipline is not a “true Scotsman fallacy”. I haven't claimed they were not creationists, only that they lacked knowledge of the informed creationist position.

Surely if your impression were true, you would be able to find an abundance of older creationist literature (i.e. from a time before we supposedly saw the light of Darwin) arguing for 'fixity of species'.

 

“ I'm not talking about Augustine's opinion; I'm talking about Genesis – as I read it.

Yes. He seems to be the better theologian in this case. Sorry. ”

You don't have to apologise for Innuendo and Unsupported Assertions. They are logic fallacies, and therefore contain nothing of rational substance for me to be offended by.

 

“ Well. let's take a look… Genesis 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. Nothing about "reproducing according to kind."”

How about Genesis 1:11-12 (which you must have skipped to get to verse 25)?

Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Therefore not “Nothing about "reproducing according to kind”.

 

“Nor does God describe the process by which each kind was created”

God called creation into existence and upholds it by the power/authority of His word (see all the instances of “God said” in Genesis 1, also Hebrews 1:3).

 

“You and I are created by God, but He uses natural means to create our bodies”

This is a somewhat false analogy. We are discussing the initial creation event, not the manner in which the nature has proceeded since that event.

 

“ Lol. Is this how communication works now?

Always has”

Never actually “has” – because it is an absurd standard. Though I suppose you can now dismiss all my arguments as symbolic.

 

“The text itself says that the days of creation could not be periods of time”

You keep claiming that – but also keep ignoring my requests to explain what you mean.

 

“Even Augustine admits that they were something very different than actual days”

WOW!!! “Even Augustine!!!” I should totally ignore studying scripture for myself, and just read what 'Augustine the magnificent' tells me. I mean, after all, how can this man be wrong?

 

“Your problem is that evolutionary theory accurately predicted the many, many transitional forms, and as Wise admits, creationism did not”

How is it my “problem”? Firstly, your claim is unsupported. I'd like to see where, in the literature, exactly what was found was “predicted” prior to the discovery. So not, 'Evolution theory predicts (present tense) … – and that is what we found', but rather 'This find was specifically “predicted” (past tense) in this earlier paper'.

Or is it simply a matter of evolution theory requiring (a.k.a. “predicting”) that every find fits on a putative 'tree of life'. And so when you squeeze a new find into the pan-phylogeny, you claim “prediction fulfilled”? Because all that means is that the facts are still consistent with the story.

So let's start with one example, then we can move on to the “many, many” - assuming they exist in any meaningful sense.

 

“Even worse for creationism,we find no transitional forms where there shouldn't be any, if things evolved from a common ancestor”

How does this impact “creationism” at all? Firstly, this is an example of an Argument from Ignorance (a logic fallacy). What that means in-effect is that I can't even ask you for evidence of your claim. Secondly, having not found a specific kind of contrary fact does not add any weight of objective confidence to the theory. Thirdly, even if we did make such a find, it wouldn't falsify the secular evolution story (which is unfalsifiable). It could just be called an example of 'convergent evolution' - or some other rationalisation that demonstrates the story to be unfalsifiable. And finally, creationism does not expect to find “transitional forms where” the secular account says there “there shouldn't be any”. Why would it? So this non-evidence has zero implications for creationism.

 

“And to make it even worse, genetic data links all living thing in to the same family tree that anatomical data does”

Neither the “genetic data” nor “anatomical data” “links” anything – until it is interpreted to do so. And that requires applying unverifiable presupposition to the facts.

 

“I am aware that some creationists have argued that God made it look as though everything evolved to test our faith. Since God is not dishonest, I don't think that's something a Christian can accept”

I have only ever heard this argument from anti-creationists trying to criticise creationists. It's like saying, “some creationists have argued” that 'the devil planted fossils to deceive us'.

I can't reasonably be held accountable for every dumb thing proposed by every creationist. I only consider myself accountable for arguments I provide.

 

“But let's test your belief a little. Name me two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if we have any transitional forms. Pick several cases, if you like”

How is this a “test” of my “belief”? Where did I claim that you couldn't find “any transitional forms” for “major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected”? Why are you so desperate to Strawman my position?

My position is that every fact can be interpreted to be consistent with either the secular story, or Biblical creation (depending entirely on the starting premise of the interpreter). You logically “test” this by examining the facts to determine if they can be interpreted to be consistent with both stories.

 

“ Does the Bible actually say that the sun goes around the earth?

Ecclesiastes 1:5 The sun rises, and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises. ”

So no then. Unlike Genesis which states that the creation occurred in “days”, The Bible does not claim that the sun goes around the earth. It does claim that the “sun rises”, and “the sun goes down”, then rises again. That is phenomenologically correct.

 

“ And of course, the Bible says that the Earth does not move:

Psalms 104:5 Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever. ”

You need to find a better translation to make your point – because this translation doesn't say what you claim. I'll address it anyway.

Firstly, this is a Psalm. That means it is lyrical in nature, and therefore more likely to contain symbolic or hyperbolic language. I don't think anyone who read the previous 4 verses would be in any doubt that the author was using emotive, poetic language. When it says God “laid the foundations of the earth”, do you really imagine Him pouring concrete into a dug-out pit. Hopefully not. It is hopefully obvious to any reader that the author is using a construction metaphor.

Second, in Psalm 16:8, the same author (David) uses the same Hebrew word to say, “I shall not be moved”. Is David therefore claiming that he was frozen in space and time? Or is it more reasonable to interpret this as David claiming he was established/stable/on course etc.?

Given the above information, every contextual indication, i.e. all evidence from the text itself, indicates that a symbolic interpretation of Psalm 104 is the obvious intention of the author. There is nothing in the context to suggest David was making a cosmological statement about planetary movement. Therefore, Psalm 104:5 is essentially saying that since God made the earth, it is of stable construction so that it can not be “removed” (as your provided translation puts it). It is not a statement about the momentum of the earth through space and time, but a statement about the awesomeness of God's creation.

 

“It's caused you to do all sorts of rationalizations about scripture to avoid accepting the way He created living things. Set all your rationalizations aside and just let it be His way”

Until you can justify that your position is more objectively superior to mine, statements like these represent (more) examples of meaningless, empty air – which only serve to indicate that you struggle to formulate rational arguments. I mean, if you had an actual argument, why would you feel the need to resort to this kind of insinuation?

 

[The Barbarian]

9 hours ago, DeighAnn said:

For evolution to in fact be true, there would STILL have to be walking around today, those more and those less evolved[/quote]

I hear that a lot.   "If humans evolved, why are there still apes?"   And that illuminates something important.   If evolution is true, we should see both evolved species and less evolved species.   Apes, however, are not a good example, since they are highly evolved in a different way than humans.   But there are "primitive prosimians" which are a lot like the first primates.   Some of them are also highly evolved, but others are rather generalized.

9 hours ago, DeighAnn said:

Evolution the most stupid thing man has ever conceived or considered.  (probably wasn't man anyhow)

Right.  It was God's creation.  Man just eventually noticed it.   But it's not stupid.  It's  a remarkably effective process.

10 hours ago, DeighAnn said:

Dinosaurs bones are found all over, NOT ONE man.  Yeah, Yeah, a bone part they "claim"  but NOT ONE COMPLETE one yet??

Lots of those.  Most dinosaur fossils are incomplete, too.   But we do have complete examples of each.

 

[The Barbarian]

5 hours ago, Tristen said:

What fact does “AIG admit”? I have readily admitted that there are uninformed creationists who still think in terms of 'fixity of species'. But you are trying to imply that this has been a typical position of YE creationists until recently.

Yep.  Hence AIG's note that before Darwin, creationists denied speciation.

Quote

Carl Linnaeus (who invented the classification system we use in biology) proposed that new species formed from their created ancestor before “

Darwin” was even born.

If Linnaeus did (and he seemed to have avoided that) he wouldn't have been the first.   Darwin's discovery was how it worked.   By Darwin's time, lots of scientists realized that some kind of evolution must have happened.   Darwin figured out how it works.

5 hours ago, Tristen said:

“ Well. let's take a look… Genesis 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. Nothing about "reproducing according to kind."”

How about Genesis 1:11-12 (which you must have skipped to get to verse 25)?

Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Therefore not “Nothing about "reproducing according to kind”.

If you want to say that plants reproduce according to kind, but not animals, I'd say you were still wrong.   This is only a problem for you, if you think God poofed animals and plants into existence.  If you accept that the Earth brought forth living things as God says, it's no problem at all.   And yes, plants also evolve,  since we have directly observed speciation in plants.    And both the fossil record and genetics says plants evolved from a common ancestor.  

Your biggest problem is in defining "kind"; in one sense,all life on Earth is of a kind.    There's more genetically and physiologically in common with you and a daisy than there are differences.   Which might be why God says "kind" not "kinds." 

But let's test your belief a little. Name me two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if we have any transitional forms. Pick several cases, if you like

5 hours ago, Tristen said:

How is this a “test” of my “belief”?

Pick major groups, which are "different kinds"according to creationists.   If there's genetic relationships and transitional forms between them, your concept of "created kinds" is falsified.

So what do you have?   I rarely get a response to this question,since it goes right to the heart of creationist assumptions.   And it directly tests those assumptions.   There are actually a few cases left where we don't yet have transitionals, so you might get lucky.   Give it a try?

5 hours ago, Tristen said:

“ Does the Bible actually say that the sun goes around the earth?

Yep:

Ecclesiastes 1:5 The sun rises, and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises. ”

Remember, the early Hebrews saw the earth as a flat circle with a solid dome of the sky overhead.   So the sun, in their view, moved across the sky, went under the Earth in the west, and then moved under it to appear again in the east.   Since they believed the Earth did not move, logically the sun had to be moving around the Earth. Hence Ecclesiastes.

 

5 hours ago, Tristen said:

Firstly, this is a Psalm. That means it is lyrical in nature, and therefore more likely to contain symbolic or hyperbolic language.

I thought you didn't like symbolic or hyperbolic language in scripture.   Your rationalizations are dependent on what you'd like scripture to say.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 28, 2020 by The Barbarian

[DeighAnn]

21 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

I hear that a lot.   "If humans evolved, why are there still apes?"   And that illuminates something important.   If evolution is true, we should see both evolved species and less evolved species.   Apes, however, are not a good example, since they are highly evolved in a different way than humans.   But there are "primitive prosimians" which are a lot like the first primates.   Some of them are also highly evolved, but others are rather generalized.

Right.  It was God's creation.  Man just eventually noticed it.   But it's not stupid.  It's  a remarkably effective process.

Lots of those.  Most dinosaur fossils are incomplete, too.   But we do have complete examples of each.

 

I understand.  You just don't believe the Bible is the Word of God.

[one.opinion]

On 8/20/2020 at 12:20 PM, David1701 said:

And where would you find that in the Bible?

If you take the plain reading of Genesis 4 and Genesis 5, you will see that there were many other people on the planet before Seth was born. It wasn't until after Seth that the other sons and daughters of Adam and Eve were born.

[one.opinion]

13 hours ago, DeighAnn said:

I understand.  You just don't believe the Bible is the Word of God.

No, it isn't that simple. It is error to assume that your understanding of God's Word is infallible and all other understandings are therefore, a disbelief that the Bible is the Word of God.