Creationist - What about Evolution you disagree with?

[Jose Fly]

My whole cryptic point is to force the average evolutionist to accept the fact they have "unknowns" in their closet.

That's pretty much what NewHope was on about, and as I told her, I don't think anyone here is disputing the fact that evolutionary scientists have yet to figure out the entire history of every trait and organism that's ever existed on earth.

Why do people keep harping on that?

Little "untestable" secrets that are not openly discussed.

What's untestable?

Its problematic with the "scientific process" to show only favorable arguments. The process benefits when all sides are discussed.
So if creationist believe in A,B,C.
Evolutionist believe in a,B,C.
We can agree that if B and C are the same (lets say B is evolution and C is the DNA/RNA science), they only differ in A and a.
The A for creationist is ID from a creator.
The a for evolutionist is axiomatic and not discussed, but its there. Where did the first cell come from.

Are you trying to argue that scientists aren't actively researching the origin of life on earth, or not even discussing it?

 

[newhope101]

That's pretty much what NewHope was on about, and as I told her, I don't think anyone here is disputing the fact that evolutionary scientists have yet to figure out the entire history of every trait and organism that's ever existed on earth.

Why do people keep harping on that?
Because the evidence you find very often does not back up commonly held evolutionary assumptions made. The model changes eg punctuated equilibrium. Do you know what this looks like to an outsider? The scene gives the image of researchers grabbing at any straw to support evolutionary theory and when it doesn't a new theory arises. I say the theory of evolution is a theory in evolution itself.

People keep harping because your science is the only science that accepts such a ridiculously low standard of acceptance of 'evidence'. This is further supported by tossing same evidence into the garbage bin of delusions past. It is not about why we keep harping. It is about why can you not see what this looks like from outside the square!

What's untestable?

Exactly. In a controlled lab your researchers are unable to make life from non life. With all the advances made to date one may expect that by now these researchers would have accomplished same.
Putting up research that involved inserting made information into an already living cell is not making life from non life.
Are you trying to argue that scientists aren't actively researching the origin of life on earth, or not even discussing it?

I think they are very active in this field. Imagine the acclaim for the first researcher to make a living, working, replicating cell from non life.

Certainly my aim is not to convince evolutionists that their faith is rubbish. You are equally entitled to believe the first living cell arose naturally even though this cannot be proven to date. I am equally entitled to say that God created, without proof.

To reject or be skeptical about TOE should be an informed decision. To say that creationists are stupid, uneducated and ignorant, is a really outdated notion that has been played to death on RF in desperation.

I have posted info that suggests in 2009, 13% of scientists did not adhere to TOE as it stands. This figure is up by over 12% from 1986.

I see your science making less and less sense as time goes by. Phylogeny does not match with taxonomy, traits arise independently, I found problems with the molecular clock and mutation rates, I have seen computer modelling based on probabilites that change and sweeping assumption entwined within them, ancestries challenged, researchers looking at the same evidence both fossil, phylogenic and computer modelled and still disagreeing hugely on its meaning. This is your best effort. Fair enough. However you should not expect that any person should leave their reasoning ability tucked away while hearing all this and simply decide to switch faiths on the basis of it.

Once one gets to look closely at all the debate, contradictory research changing hypothesis, irrefuteable evidence for common thinking tossed aside, TOE appears even less convincing than before I came to RF as an agnostic and non creationist. More information has not turned me over to TOE, rather the opposite.

Here's another tidbit that illustrates confusion around the first vertebrates.
Tunicates and not cephalochordates are the closest living relatives of vertebrates : Nature


What is more important to me is that evolutionists understand that many of those that are skeptical of TOE have come to that point by an informed decision. What I have seen of the basis for TOE is just not convincing enough to turn some people aside from any other belief to yours and there are well educated and credentialed persons that think likewise.

There will be no respect between evos and creationists unless we can see and accept each others views and the reasons for them, without hatred and bigotry.

 

[LuisDantas]

What is more important to me is that evolutionists understand that many of those that are skeptical of TOE have come to that point by an informed decision.

Those are exciting news. Too bad those people are nowhere to be found.

What I have seen of the basis for TOE is just not convincing enough to turn some people aside from any other belief to yours and there are well educated and credentialed persons that think likewise.

From what I have seen, that is because you fail to understand the basics of the ToE. You are even describing it as a "belief".

There will be no respect between evos and creationists unless we can see and accept each others views and the reasons for them, without hatred and bigotry.

That is true. It doesn't follow that Creationism can survive, however.

 

[Jose Fly]

NewHope,

So can I conclude that you're not going to respond to the questions I asked you?

 

[Autodidact]

So sorry.
What Im trying to state is that God created the universe/galaxy/solar system/planet and the mechanism to put life on earth. That mechanism is the DNA structure with directed influence.

O.K., fine, if that's what you believe. It's a religious, not scientific idea, and entirely consistent with ToE, which is a scientific, not religious, idea.

The major presupposition of ToE is that a single cell (that is able to reproduce) came first.

This is wrong. This is a conclusion, NOT a presupposition, or what regular people call an assumption. ToE came to the conclusion that there was a single common ancestor.

This is a metaphysical argument since its not testable.

No, it's a scientific conclusion.

This presupposition that is axiomatic to all ToE discussions is a metaphysical component of ToE.

It's not a presupposition, and it's not mystical. It's a conclusion about the natural, material world.

Take it or leave it, cant have life with evolution without a starting point. So creationist and evolutionist believe in part, non provable items (otherwise known as metaphysical).

It is factual that at one time, there was no life on earth. That is a natural, scientific, material fact. Now there is life on earth. Therefore, we can conclude that at some point there was a first living thing.

Science is not about proof. It's about evidence. Nothing that scientists conclude is ever proven, including the nature of the first living thing on earth.

When creationist and evolutionist talk, the common ground is sometimes sparse.

Did you mean creationists and scientists? What is an "evolutionist?"

When both agree with the DNA/RNA mechanism of producing life, we both agree on the "science".

Not most of the science, no.

When we both agree on the physical science of the DNA/RNA, we both still have parts of our "theory" that are metaphysical.

Nope. ToE is entirely, completely, methodological naturalism. That is, it's science and nothing but.

Metaphysical not being falsifiable.

ToE is falsifiable.

Often the evolutionist doesnt want to identify or talk about their metaphysical believes.

What ever metaphysical beliefs an individual scientist might have, such as Christianity, has no bearing on their scientific work.

More often than naught it is abiogensis, cosmogenesis and parts of evolution that is never provable (I shouldnt say never).

None of these have anything to do with ToE, so we don't need to figure out whether they are scientific or religious subjects.

That being said, I tried to sum up the metaphysical aspects from prior conversations. One was the macroevolution concept.

there's nothing metaphysical about it. It's entirely physical.

Microevolution is changes below the species level while macroevolution can be considered changes on a grand scale and functional changes that occur on a higher taxa.

O.K.

Two example I brought up for the evolutionist metaphysical belief system is the axiomatic "given" of a cell for all life to start.

Which, as I point out, is a conclusion about the natural world, not a metaphysical presupposition.

The other was the "big" macroevolution, higher taxa, higher or completely new functioning organism.

Which is also a scientific conclusion about the natural world, not a metaphysical presupposition.

This is also a metaphysical (non falsifiable/testable) belief. Also the time scales involved with evolution are not falsifiable, therefore somewhat metaphysical.

It's quite falsifiable, and I can think of thousands of ways it could have been falsified, had it turned out to be wrong. It isn't, so it hasn't been.

 

[camanintx]

Why do people keep harping on that?
Because the evidence you find very often does not back up commonly held evolutionary assumptions made. The model changes eg punctuated equilibrium. Do you know what this looks like to an outsider? The scene gives the image of researchers grabbing at any straw to support evolutionary theory and when it doesn't a new theory arises. I say the theory of evolution is a theory in evolution itself.

Whether you argue that birds evolved from dinosaurs, dinosaurs evolved from birds or both evolved from some other organism, there is no question that they EVOLVED. Even the sources you have linked to admit that. There is absolutely NO evidence that life today is the same as it always has been, unless you have a few pre-cambrian rabbit fossils you haven't told us about.

 

[Onlooker]

That's pretty much what NewHope was on about, and as I told her, I don't think anyone here is disputing the fact that evolutionary scientists have yet to figure out the entire history of every trait and organism that's ever existed on earth.

Why do people keep harping on that?

Good point. I personally believe that its how the argument was framed. Evolution v Creation. Inherently the creation "myth" involves big bang/cosmogenesis/abiogenesis/morality/spirituality. Evolution involves the DNA machinery and its products. So it is overwhelming to argue point for point. So I just try to point out, both sides have some unknowns.

What's untestable?

The first cell produced by whatever process. The exact environment that life started out with. The exact time frames life showed up on earth. Lots of science is not testable. That doesnt mean its wrong/false/not scientific.

Are you trying to argue that scientists aren't actively researching the origin of life on earth, or not even discussing it?

no

 

[Skwim]

I have posted info that suggests in 2009, 13% of scientists did not adhere to TOE as it stands. This figure is up by over 12% from 1986.

Really! I must have missed that info, because the last figures I could find from a reputable source (Gallup polls in this case) were 5% and .15%, which are quite far from your 11.6% and 13%.

Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.
source

A 1997 Gallup poll also found only 5% of scientist believed in creationism.
source
​

 

[Jose Fly]

Good point. I personally believe that its how the argument was framed. Evolution v Creation. Inherently the creation "myth" involves big bang/cosmogenesis/abiogenesis/morality/spirituality. Evolution involves the DNA machinery and its products. So it is overwhelming to argue point for point. So I just try to point out, both sides have some unknowns.

But it isn't really "both sides". That's like saying when it comes to a flat earth vs. a spherical earth, "both sides have some good points".

The first cell produced by whatever process. The exact environment that life started out with. The exact time frames life showed up on earth. Lots of science is not testable. That doesnt mean its wrong/false/not scientific.
no

Then I'm afraid I don't understand your point. If scientists are actively testing hypothesis regarding the origin of life, how is it not testable? Are they just making stuff up?

 

[Onlooker]

This is wrong. This is a conclusion, NOT a presupposition, or what regular people call an assumption. ToE came to the conclusion that there was a single common ancestor.

That is wrong. Def:a presupposition (or ps) is an implicit assumption about the world or background belief relating to an utterance whose truth is taken for granted in discourse. So it is a presupposition.

No, it's a scientific conclusion. It's not a presupposition, and it's not mystical. It's a conclusion about the natural, material world.

for this argument i believe this definition fits the best for a conclusion:
a. a reasoned deduction or inference.
b. Logic . a proposition concluded or inferred from the premises of an argument.
So, its not a fact, nor a proven commodity, its a reasoned/inferred proposition from evident facts. That is to say, you are wrong to say science has concluded that a single cell (that can reproduce) was produced/created a certain way. They can say it was there, because you and I are alive today. So, its axiomatic in evolution's belief that a single cell organism that can reproduce was accidentally (with no outside influence) formed.

Did you mean creationists and scientists? What is an "evolutionist?"

Its a term that fits believers of evolution and chance. Since they hold to the fact that is a pure science and nothing more or less. Unfortunately there are non testable parts of the entire picture (abio/cosmogenesis) which have become axiomatic component of the evolutionist. A non testable part doesnt make it more or less scientific, its just nudges the science into the nontestable areas that metaphysical sciences enjoy.

 

[Gunfingers]

That is wrong. Def:a presupposition (or ps) is an implicit assumption about the world or background belief relating to an utterance whose truth is taken for granted in discourse. So it is a presupposition.

chortle \CHOR-tl\ , transitive and intransitive verb;

1. To utter, or express with, a snorting, exultant laugh or chuckle.

noun: 1. A snorting, exultant laugh or chuckle.

So it is a chortle.

Or were we not just taking definitions that don't match the circumstance and ascribing them to the concept of UCA?

 

[newhope101]

There is a notable difference between the opinion of scientists and that of the general public in the United States. A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "87% of scientists say that humans and other living things have evolved over time and that evolution is the result of natural processes such as natural selection. Just 32% of the public accepts this as true."[39]

Level of support for evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

100-87=13%...that do not !!!!!

Skwim.. straining the point is pointless. I have stated that well credentialed scientists do not accept TOE. Are you going to go on for pages and pages illustrating an inability to acknowledge this, regardless of what percentage we adhere to.

Camanin... the agreement that everything evolves is about the only thing agreed to in evolutionary sciences.

The days of calling creationists uneducated and ignorant are long gone, except for religious bigots that adhere to their faith regardless of evidence to the contrary. Religious bigots are the only ones having problems in acknowledging there are a small proportion of credentialed scientists that do not adhere to TOE.



Genetic Entropy

http://www.tccsa.tc/articles/young_earth_creation_scientific_evidence.pdf

 

[Onlooker]

But it isn't really "both sides". That's like saying when it comes to a flat earth vs. a spherical earth, "both sides have some good points".

what is your "point" of the origin of life. Mine involves a Creator. Sure, you may not contemplate that point, but its valid since I brought it up. Your belief system is in question when it comes to the unanswerable aspects of our world. What do you believe on how the first cell was created/formed?

Then I'm afraid I don't understand your point. If scientists are actively testing hypothesis regarding the origin of life, how is it not testable? Are they just making stuff up?

They are actively testing their hypothesis. But they dont know the exact temp/pressure/O2 levels/N2 levels/CO2 levels/NH4 levels, so therefore it is not testable (at least the exact conditions during the first living cell). What Im trying to get the discussion to agree with is that both sides have non provable points. They can never state exactly how the first cell was created. Neither can we. They can never state how exactly the cosmos was formed, neither can we. Do I agree with the science and results, yes (80% of the time, minus the plagerism and false studies for financial issues that is becoming a pandemic in the science community).

 

[Onlooker]

chortle \CHOR-tl\ , transitive and intransitive verb;

1. To utter, or express with, a snorting, exultant laugh or chuckle.

noun: 1. A snorting, exultant laugh or chuckle.

So it is a chortle.

Or were we not just taking definitions that don't match the circumstance and ascribing them to the concept of UCA?

Whats UCA?

 

[Gunfingers]

Level of support for evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

100-87=13%...that do not !!!!!

So because 13% of scientists don't agree with Evolution we must assume that the other 87% are wrong and the earth was created by the Christian god in 4004BC?

Edit for clarity, and to add:

Whats UCA?

Universal Common Ancestry

 

[Autodidact]

That is wrong. Def:a presupposition (or ps) is an implicit assumption about the world or background belief relating to an utterance whose truth is taken for granted in discourse. So it is a presupposition.

No, it's a conclusion. Scientists figured out how species arise. They figured out that arise from existing species via the evolutionary process. They deducted that the existing species on earth each arose from a previously existing species. They observed, via fossil records, how complexity increases as time goes forward. So they deduced, or inferred, that the oldest species would be the most simple. As you can see, this fits your definition of a conclusion:

for this argument i believe this definition fits the best for a conclusion:
a. a reasoned deduction or inference.
b. Logic . a proposition concluded or inferred from the premises of an argument.
So, its not a fact, nor a proven commodity, its a reasoned/inferred proposition from evident facts.

That's right, a reasoned deduction from facts. That's what the single common ancestor is.

That is to say, you are wrong to say science has concluded that a single cell (that can reproduce) was produced/created a certain way.

If I'm following you, this would be abiogenesis, not evolution.

They can say it was there, because you and I are alive today. So, its axiomatic in evolution's belief that a single cell organism that can reproduce was accidentally (with no outside influence) formed.

No, it makes no different to evolution how the single common ancestor got there. It could have been magically breathed into existence by Krishna. Once it's there, if it reproduces, that's where evolution kicks in.

Its a term that fits believers of evolution and chance. Since they hold to the fact that is a pure science and nothing more or less. Unfortunately there are non testable parts of the entire picture (abio/cosmogenesis) which have become axiomatic component of the evolutionist. A non testable part doesnt make it more or less scientific, its just nudges the science into the nontestable areas that metaphysical sciences enjoy.

Anti-science folks always talk about chance. It's not about chance. It's about a specific, observed, described evolutionary process. Cosmogenesis has nothing to do with it. That's another entire field of science. Abiogenesis has nothing to do with it--that's a different problem. (It is testable, btw, it just hasn't been solved yet. I'm sure you can imagine how it could easily be testable, though. Think Miller-Urey.) ToE is a solid, naturalistic, materialistic scientific theory, nothing more and nothing less.

 

[Autodidact]

what is your "point" of the origin of life. Mine involves a Creator. Sure, you may not contemplate that point, but its valid since I brought it up. Your belief system is in question when it comes to the unanswerable aspects of our world. What do you believe on how the first cell was created/formed?

Then I suggest you start two threads to discuss these interesting questions, which are irrelevant to this thread.

 

[Onlooker]

No, it's a conclusion. Scientists figured out how species arise. They figured out that arise from existing species via the evolutionary process. They deducted that the existing species on earth each arose from a previously existing species. They observed, via fossil records, how complexity increases as time goes forward. So they deduced, or inferred, that the oldest species would be the most simple. As you can see, this fits your definition of a conclusion:
That's right, a reasoned deduction from facts

Yes, no one questions the obvious, the not so obvious is the first, the alpha, the beginning cell. Its part of the evolutionist belief system, we evolved (notice all the science facts btw) and we came from a cell (inferred, obviously) but we all believe it was ......um.......its another branch of science, so talk about it somewhere else you creationist. Its not a problem with me if all evolutionist dont want to discuss how we started, but why do these discussion groups always blanket statement creationist instead of intelligent design? I think it would be easier for a "creationist" on an evolution blog to be referred to as ID, once you bring in the "creation" event, you are opening the door for abiogenesis, cosmogenesis etc.. If that part of your belief system isnt suppose to be discussed , then limit our belief system by the term Intelligent Design or Purposeful Design. I think that would keep us on the evolution focus.

That's what the single common ancestor is. If I'm following you, this would be abiogenesis, not evolution. No, it makes no different to evolution how the single common ancestor got there. It could have been magically breathed into existence by Krishna. Once it's there, if it reproduces, that's where evolution kicks in.

agreed on all parts. An evolutionist standpoint is defined in the above, "it doesnt matter how it started" and then evolution kicked in. A creationist standpoint is defined as "it was a purposeful and creative event that the DNA kicked in at the right time and then DNA machinery continues over billions of years.

Anti-science folks always talk about chance. It's not about chance. It's about a specific, observed, described evolutionary process. Cosmogenesis has nothing to do with it. That's another entire field of science. Abiogenesis has nothing to do with it--that's a different problem. (It is testable, btw, it just hasn't been solved yet. I'm sure you can imagine how it could easily be testable, though. Think Miller-Urey.) ToE is a solid, naturalistic, materialistic scientific theory, nothing more and nothing less.

yeah, MU experiment was novel, dont know what the end result would be. Again, abiogenesis has as much mystical answers as any religion could put forth. DNA machinery is rock solid as the answer to life on this planet, a well design, intelligent engine that moves forward that was pretty well described in the Hebrew 32 verses in genesis.

 

[Iasion]

Gday,

Yes, no one questions the obvious, the not so obvious is the first, the alpha, the beginning cell.

Wrong.
The first life was NOT a cell.

See - there's the problem - you don't actually know anything about evolution (or abiogenesis.)

Perhaps if you actually studied the subject a little, you wouldn't keep making howling mistakes like that one.

We see this every day here - the people who argue against evolution NEVER UNDERSTAND it.


Iasion

 

[Onlooker]

Then I suggest you start two threads to discuss these interesting questions, which are irrelevant to this thread.

They are relevant if they are poised to you in the form of a question. Also, when evolutionist talk about creationist, it opens the door for the above. If you want to stick to a strict conversation about evolution, maybe describing the mystical believers as the ID guys. It would limit it to just that, the design of DNA, how it steamrolls over billions of years with purpose and intent. But..if you call "us" creationist, well...abiogenesis and cosmogenesis are in our name, our moniker, our label, our belief. Just my opinion.