How best to argue against creationists

[Autodidact]

There is no universally accepted definition of species.

Well, let's use your definition then. What definition are you using?

Once you figure that out, be sure to answer the question, because you wouldn't want people to think you were evading it, would you?

 

[Autodidact]

This is equivocation on what is a species. There is no universally accepted definition of species and there are no new forms of creatures observed being evolved. Hence part of the ToE isn't observable and should be in the philosphy class.

What is a "form?" We see new species evolve, don't you agree?

SCIENCE /= WHAT WE OBSERVE. That's just looking. Science is what we conclude from what we observe.

There is no, repeat no part of ToE that is any more philosophy than is chemistry or geology. Should they be in philosophy as well?

 

[Autodidact]

The ToE says that a frog became a prince, why would that falsify the ToE if it happened again?

Because ToE doesn't say that anything turns into anything. Would you like to learn what it actually does say?

And I'm not talking quickly, I'm talking over long periods of time.

Over a long period of time, nothing "turns into" anything. What happens is, populations change their allele frequencies.

If it happened one time, it should be continually happening, if "the present is the key to the past". We should see humans being developed right before our very eyes in a million different stages.

We do. That's exactly what we observe, and why your ability to digest milk is different from a Han Chinese person's ability to do so.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

There is no universally accepted definition of species.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

My sentiments exactly...

 

[Autodidact]

Let's say that there isn't a barrier limiting genetic drift, all this Darwinian evolution still isn't observable so it still falls into the philosophical arena. It is a worldview.

It's BASED ON what we observe.

I would like you to read, think about, understand and if possible remember this:

SCIENCE IS BASED ON EVIDENCE.

We observe things, and based on those observations develop possible explanations, which we use to make predictions. Then we look to see whether the predictions are borne out.

Science is much more than what we observe. It's a mental process.
ToE, like all science, is based on what we observe. It's an explanation we can use to make predictions--millions of them. And every one of them has been borne out. Without exception. Every time. And that's how we know it's a correct explanation. We have a word for this process. We call it "science."

 

[Autodidact]

That is not universally accepted, science can't agree.

So what?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I challenge you to post one example of the accepted Theory of Evolution that is philosophical.
Just one.

I'm not speaking for MoF at all, BUT

Science does not interpret itself. Evolution is a theory because it is a huge interpretation of how a massive amount of evidence fits together.

Interpretive methods are constructed by philosophical metaphysics. BUT that does not give us the right to construct an interpretative method that is not suitable for or related to the body of evidence.

Scientific experimentation has proven all of the central points of evolutionary theory, and creationism doesn't have anything to do with the evidence and makes no attempt to recoincile all the evidence into a coherent theory.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I'm not speaking for MoF at all, BUT

Science does not interpret itself. Evolution is a theory because it is a huge interpretation of how a massive amount of evidence fits together.

Interpretive methods are constructed by philosophical metaphysics. BUT that does not give us the right to construct an interpretative method that is not suitable for or related to the body of evidence.

Scientific experimentation has proven all of the central points of evolutionary theory, and creationism doesn't have anything to do with the evidence and makes no attempt to recoincile all the evidence into a coherent theory.

 

[Autodidact]

MoF seems to suffer under the misapprehension that science consists of describing what we observe. Science consists of deriving and testing explanations for what we observe. We do not directly observe those explanations. We use them to generate predictions, which we do observe.

Like ToE.

btw, MoF, this description of what science is, is philosophy.

 

[evolved yet?]

My sentiments exactly...

Agreed.

 

[Danmac]

Let us discuss/debate the methods for dealing with creationists. I argue that the worst thing a person can do is to argue the facts with a creationist. So long as they have their faith nothing you show them about the fossil record, dating methods, etc, will change their position. Instead, the only sensible thing to do is avoid specif questions about the science and the facts and instead turn the debate around, get to the root of the problem, which is fundamentalism. The debate must be focused on the question of why? Why is it so important that evolution be wrong? Why is a literal interpretation of Genesis so important? When they claim that no one has ever witnessed macro evolution, ignore it and return with the question why is that such a threat to your faith? Fundamentalism is the enemy in this debate and not ignorance of science.

On a side note I just want to say how annoyed I am with the fact that the term creation (creationist, creationism etc) has come to be connected the way it has with the most fundamentalist interpretations of the doctrine. In the broadest sense, I consider myself a creationist because "I believe in one God, the Father the almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen". But if I were to label myself as such, people would instantly think I reject evolution and believe the earth to be only a few thousand years old. Annoying, they must be stopped, we must restore creationism to its rightful place of honor!

Fossil Record

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Fossil Record

First page:
Darwin was talking over 100 years ago. Since then, we have found thousands of transitional fossils.

Second page:
A collection of misquotations. Dr. Patterson's quote has been extensively looked into and found to be misleading and quite possibly entirely doctored (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson/patterson.gif).

Third page:
More quotemining. David M. Roup accepts evolution theory, he just found - as all paleontologists did - that it didn't precisely fit what Darwin predicted: "Now let me step back from the problem and very generally discuss natural selection and what we know about it. I think it is safe to say that we know for sure that natural selection, as a process, does work. There is a mountain of experimental and observational evidence, much of it predating genetics, which shows that natural selection as a biological process works." ("Now let me step back from the problem and very generally discuss natural selection and what we know about it. I think it is safe to say that we know for sure that natural selection, as a process, does work. There is a mountain of experimental and observational evidence, much of it predating genetics, which shows that natural selection as a biological process works.")

Fourth page:
Yet more quotemining. The full quote from the Blind Watchmaker is thus: "Natural selection is the blind watchmaker; blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of desing and planning. The purpose of this book is to resolve this paradox to the satisfaction of the reader."

Fifth page:
I can't find a single reliable source on who H.S Lipson even is, let alone the source of these quotes attributed to him.

And the rest is all bunk.

 

[newhope101]

New world encyclopedia:
The existence of the mechanism of natural selection is nearly universally recognized, as is its ability to impact gene frequencies in populations (microevolution) and remove unfit phenotypes. However, the ability of natural selection to be the main creative force of changes on the macroevolutionary level, such as the development of higher taxa and major new designs, remains controversial.While natural selection is widely accepted as a force in nature, and the theory of modification by natural selection has been demonstrated on the microevolutionary level, the theory remains controversial as an explanation for macroevolutonary change.

I'm glad so many of you are convinced of the power of natural selection to bring about the changes from chimp to human and bird to dinosaur. However many highly credential scientists (PHD or higher with 30 yrs exerience or more in the field), do not feel natural selection is the basis for species evolving into a macro event...ie chimp to human. It's good to see some of you 'know' better than they.

As for the continually offered example of the fossil evidence. This is not evidence at all. Researchers can clearly identify what they call a modern human skull. All other skulls are debated and not just what homo sub it resembles but also confusion around if it's anstralepithicus or a gorilla. Homo Florensiensis is an example of a creature with modernish skul and 3 million year old traits in the body. These skulls apear nothing more than a variety of apes. Every skull that is not like a current non human primate is seen as an evolutionary mid species in the homo line. I have posted info where a researcher thinks it's rubbish. He is a credentialed researcher and likely knows better than you or I. The research I post is from science journals or science sites.

Many so called intermittent species have been questioned. I have posted the dino/bird contoversy. It's just a matter of time before the others will take the dive.


Saying creation hasn't got anything to do with the evidence appears a nonsensical statement to make. Have you read anything I have posted and checked it out yourself??? Indeed I have quoted much credentialed research that identifies a single ancestor or two individual ancestors. Genomic research speaks for itself in this way. Fancy hypothesis to make it work is not necessary. No doubt there will be controversy in relation to methods and interpretation of results. However it is much less fool hardy than a bunch of scientists quibbling about what fossil belongs where in relation to humans or any other species.

The sponge genome identified a single individual sponge was the ancestor of all sponges alive today and is not in the human line as previously believed. The dog is traced back to two individual wolves. Flowers now are to be grouped into two groups that split from one then there's mtEve and YAdam. So if one was using current research, one may use current genomic testing as evidence for the creation of 'kinds'. The individual organism or two could be seen as the creation point of that kind. The concept of species, including the 'species' problem, doesn't matter. I have posted research that displays how easy it is to use substitution rates that can manipulate dating results.

You can call a modern dog a dog, or domesticated wolf. It seems the wolf was the first of its kind and God appears to have made one breeding pair initially. The point I have made by citing certain research is that it can support creation. After all evolutionary theory illustrates how clades of people or organisms evolved rather than any individual or creature suddenly appearing. Yet to the contrary genomic testing has noted decendency to an individual in the case of a sponge, or two in the case of species that reproduce sexually ie dog. There is much more, these are just examples. If you are educated at all on this topic you should be familiar with the latest genomic research anyway.

Other suportive research is the incredible genomic similarity between species. As I posted previously, Trichoplax, one of natures most primitive mulicellular organisms shares 80% of its genes with humans. This research supports 'kinds' being created and having the genetic potential to produce an abundance of variety. It can be seen that God did not need to create one of every living organism. God only needed to create what would complete the immediate ecosystem in the garden of Eden. As his creation multiplied and spread there was plenty of genetic diversity for the adaptive needs of the kinds to proliferate into the various environments over time. It doesn't matter if they got bigger or smaller, got short or long noses etc etc. It certainly makes not differnence if a wolf became a dog. The concept of species and subspecies is something humans cannot agree on. Surely God doesn't care about the inticate naming system humans have invented. If you want to say a dog is a different species to a wolf and come up with a concept to explain it, that is not a creationist dilemma. It should not be a problem for God either. I don't think God cares if you give a kind that has used its' genetic diversity to adapt to changing environments a new name. It is easy to understand why such simple organisms have nerve cells and share so many genes with all other life. It was a great plan.

Genesis speaks to the creation of kinds and humans in the garden of Eden where God tells all to multiply and fill the planet, indicating that the planet was not full of life at that time. So the notion of life starting in an geographical area is not new to ToE, as this was a biblical concept written about in Genesis, long before Darwin.

I have posted research that turns current ToE thinking around, such as the research re dinosaurs apparently evolving from birds as opposed to the other way around. There is similar research around the whale. I post this and other confronting research to highlight the point that researchers appear very confused. If the fossil evidence is so clear why are mistakes like these made or even questioned by other credentialed scientists. I have posted, in other threads, info re a researcher whose morphological studies appear to support we decended from orangutangs, which is contrary to genomic research yet many researchers support his work. Indeed it is not hard to find such controversial research. Some is accepted by the scientific community, some is not.

Florensiensis specimens have skull that resemble something that died a million years earlier and other body parts that suggest our 3 million year old human ancestors. This kind of info realy leads me to think that all these homo species above sapiens are possibly just non human primates that show adaptive differentiation. I have posted in this thread info and research that appears in scientific journals, that dismisses all the homo species as incorrect and misleading. If any researcher or poster here chooses to put blinkers on and only accept or acknowledge research that suits them and disregards the rest are you not falling into the same quagmire you accuse all creationists of sinking into?

Many researchers suggest the current phologenic tree of life is misleading. Others say that any tree is a totally misleading way to represent the phyologenic connections in life. Certainly, DNA sequencing has not provided the clear species distinction that was initially envisaged. This does not kill Toe, of course. However I find it difficult to understand why evolutionists think non evolutionists are so silly.

The request for this thread was to provide evidence for the case of creation. This may be seen as a bit of a trap, given the acclaim that would be given to anyone that actually did. I have sought to seek evidence in support of creation rather than as 'proof' of creation. After all, there are hundreds of researchers investigating how to support ToE and they have problems amongst themselves. It is unlikely that any individual is going to come up with a theory of anything and fully support it with non contested evidence.

I feel I have provided some research that is evidence in support of the creation of kinds. I have given info related to the falability of current radiometric dating. I have provided research that indicates current evolutionary thinking is quickly changed and firmly challenged.

It's often about interpretation of the evidence. I acknowledge recent genomic sequencing as providing strong support for the case of creation. I acknowlede that recent genomic sequencing is not providing the species distinction that Toe predicts and researchers expected. Rather it supports and ackowledges the existence of the first living organism of that kind or first breeding pair of that kind for of all current species that exist today.

I expect continuing genomic sequencing to continue to support the creation of kinds and to continually confuse and strain ToE. resulting in countless explanatory hypothesis to resolve the data within ToE framework.

Maybe God was not so silly as to expect people to believe in him through blind faith. Perhaps the evidence is out there, we just need to look at it through clear unbiased lenses.

 

[newhope101]

Here I'll post a refute, by Mae-Wan Ho, to my own assertions in that my much quoted genomic research may mean absolutely nothing at all..not unlike much of the so called evidence for ToE...However current research is the best evidence one can use to support any theory, despite it's limitations.​

As for Darwins ToE linchpin ..natural selection..it appears to NOT be a satisfactory explanation for one species evolving into a totally different species as ToE asserts, after all. ..and these are assertions from highly qualified researchers and scientists. It's not just uneducated creationists that have strong concerns as to the validity of ToE asssertions. To allege otherwise highlights ignorance.​

Mae-Wan Ho
Institute of Science in Society
24 Old Gloucester St., London WC1N 3AL UK ​

The human genome may go down in history as the biggest white elephant for humanity. It cost a lot and is useless, it does not work, and is so expensive to maintain and grows so big so fast that it will bankrupt the industry as well as entire nations [1]. The only clear message in the ‘book of life’ is "there is no one home, life is not to be found here". Craig Venter, whose company Celera raced the publicly funded sequencing consortium to the finishing line, said as much, "We simply do not have enough genes for this idea of biological determinism to be right. The wonderful diversity of the human species is not hard-wired in our genetic code. Our environments are critical." [2].
James Watson and other proponents of the human genome project perpetrated the ultimate genetic determinist myth that the human genome sequence contains the ‘blueprint for making a human being’. The public has paid out billions of dollars in the United States and hundreds of millions of pounds in the United Kingdom. Now, dozens of genome sequences later, the sequencers haven’t a clue of how to make the smallest bacterium or the simplest worm, let alone a human being. The human genome may consist of up to 98.9% ‘junk DNA’ with no known function. Geneticists are baffled. "The genome isn’t a code, and we can’t read it."
Health genomics research will do nothing to identify or remove the causes of cancer. Instead, it will identify all the genes that ‘predispose’ the victims to cancers, to enable corporations that have made lots of money polluting the environment with carcinogens to make lots more money selling diagnostic tests and ‘miracle cures’. Patients are bankable assets, and terminal cancer patients all the more so.
Public investment was needed to keep the human genome in the public domain, we were told. But that had not prevented any human gene from being patented. On the contrary, scientists funded by the public have been busy patenting genes and starting up private companies, with little or no return to the public coffers [FONT=helvetica,times][SIZE=-1][8][/SIZE][/FONT]. Genes and cell lines stolen from indigenous peoples are patented, and governments are selling DNA databases of entire nations to private companies. These patents and proprietary databases not only violate basic human rights and dignity, they are seriously distorting healthcare and stifling scientific research and innovation [FONT=helvetica,times][SIZE=-1][9][/SIZE][/FONT]. They should be firmly rejected by the scientific community.


From Wiki
Natural selection is the process by which biological organisms with favorable traits survive and reproduce more successfully than organisms that do not possess such traits, and, conversely, organisms with deleterious traits survive and reproduce less successfully than organisms lacking such deleterious traits. This selection process is in response to forces in the natural world, as opposed to artificial selection, whereby selection is made by a human being, such as a farmer selecting his breeding stock or variety of plant. Traditionally, natural selection has been applied to biological individuals; however, the process has also been applied to levels both below the individual (the gene) and above the individual (species, higher taxa) (Dawkins 1988; Gould 2002).
Natural selection is a cornerstone of modern evolutionary theory. The term was introduced by Charles Darwin in his 1859 book The Origin of Species. The theory of evolution by natural selection, as developed by Darwin, holds that natural selection results in favorable, heritable traits becoming more common in subsequent populations and, over time, is the creative force even in macroevolutionary changes, such as the development of new species, higher taxa, and major new designs.
The existence of the mechanism of natural selection is nearly universally recognized, as is its ability to impact gene frequencies in populations (microevolution) and remove unfit phenotypes. However, the ability of natural selection to be the main creative force of changes on the macroevolutionary level, such as the development of higher taxa and major new designs, remains controversial.
Evidence for the theory of modification by natural selection is seen on the microevolutionary level, such as the development of bacterial resistance. However, the view that natural selection is the primary causal agent in macroevolutionary change remains controversial. There are evolutionists, such as Gould (2002), who question whether one can extrapolate from microevolutionary change to macroevolutionary change.
　
　
News in science:
A new analysis of fossils has fuelled the debate on the real age of placental mammals.

A team of palaeontologists, lead by Mike Foote from the University of Chicago, has attempted to measure how accurate the fossil record really is. Their results, published in the February 26 issue of Science, throws doubt on the accuracy of the "molecular clock" method of measuring when groups of organisms first appeared.
Foote's team chose to analyse placental mammals (the group of mammals that produce live young nurtured through a placenta in the mothers womb - including humans, bats, whales, elephants and mice). Fossil evidence suggests placental mammals first appeared on Earth some 65 million years ago while the biochemical data suggests a date of 130 million years. The team asked the question: "Is the fossil record so poor that the group could have been undetected for 65 million years?"
"We're just trying to make the whole question more explicit and more testable," said Foote. "We thought the right approach was to ask, what would the fossil data have to say in order to favour one hypothesis or the other, and what do the data actually say?"

 

[evolved yet?]

Seriously? New World Encyclopedia?
Oh by the way nice Gish Gallop.

 

[evolved yet?]

Natural Selection is not the only evolutionary mechanism, there is polyploidy, Allopractic speciation, sympatric speciation, parapractic speciation, sexual selection, genetic drift and many others.

 

[McBell]

Natural Selection is not the only evolutionary mechanism, there is polyploidy, Allopractic speciation, sympatric speciation, parapractic speciation, sexual selection, genetic drift and many others.

Damn them pesky facts....

 

[Autodidact]

New world encyclopedia:
The existence of the mechanism of natural selection is nearly universally recognized, as is its ability to impact gene frequencies in populations (microevolution) and remove unfit phenotypes. However, the ability of natural selection to be the main creative force of changes on the macroevolutionary level, such as the development of higher taxa and major new designs, remains controversial.While natural selection is widely accepted as a force in nature, and the theory of modification by natural selection has been demonstrated on the microevolutionary level, the theory remains controversial as an explanation for macroevolutonary change.

I'm glad so many of you are convinced of the power of natural selection to bring about the changes from chimp to human and bird to dinosaur. However many highly credential scientists (PHD or higher with 30 yrs exerience or more in the field), do not feel natural selection is the basis for species evolving into a macro event...ie chimp to human. It's good to see some of you 'know' better than they.

1. ToE does not posit that chimps evolved into humans, rather that we share a common ancestor.
2. Really? Can you name 100 Biologists who do not accept ToE?
3. Why did you lie about your beliefs?

As for the continually offered example of the fossil evidence. This is not evidence at all.

You don't consider fossils to be evidence? How odd. Why not? Researchers can clearly identify what they call a modern human skull. All other skulls are debated and not just what homo sub it resembles but also confusion around if it's anstralepithicus or a gorilla. Homo Florensiensis is an example of a creature with modernish skul and 3 million year old traits in the body. These skulls apear nothing more than a variety of apes. Every skull that is not like a current non human primate is seen as an evolutionary mid species in the homo line. I have posted info where a researcher thinks it's rubbish. He is a credentialed researcher and likely knows better than you or I. The research I post is from science journals or science sites.

Many so called intermittent species have been questioned. I have posted the dino/bird contoversy. It's just a matter of time before the others will take the dive.

Maybe God was not so silly as to expect people to believe in him through blind faith. Perhaps the evidence is out there, we just need to look at it through clear unbiased lenses.

How odd, an agnostic who believes in God. I think you should change your username to Oxymoron.

 

[Autodidact]

Seriously? New World Encyclopedia?
Oh by the way nice Gish Gallop.

New World Encyclopedia is a wiki rival to Wikipedia created by the Unification Church (or whatever they're calling themselves now). Ed Poor was a bureaucrat and rejected contributor. Some pages are inaccessible as of May 2008.