[_ Old Earth _] A Summary of This Year's Defeats of Evolution Theory

[lordkalvan]

My point that homology supports common design as well as common ancestry is true...

It may, indeed, be 'true', but we have been waiting an awful long time for you to offer your better account of the evidence to hand that explains why it might be 'true'.

...and I don't think I ever stated that "common ancestry is impossible" - with Darwinism anything and everything is possible - given enough time. Time is Darwinisms god.

Well, no, not a god in any meaningful sense of the word. Do I take it from this statement that you don't think there is enough such time, but that if there was then Darwinism would be eminently plausible?

 

[zeke]

Life created and seeded artificially on our world by unimaginably advanced aliens either from elsewhere in our Universe or from a Universe beyond ours?

But you are only raising your speculation up one notch. By what process did your imagined "advanced aliens" come into existence. Was it life from non-life via purposeless chance (an absurdity) or special creation via a Designer. You are back to your original choices. Which do you choose?

Do you *know* life is not the result of a Creator or is that a position you hold via great faith? Of course we all have the answer. Science is not the only avenue man has for knowledge.

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth......So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." Gen 1:26-27​

Are you going to present you man-chimp evidence anytime soon?

 

[zeke]

Mutations are random, in the sense that they're not caused by a deliberate agent with purpose in mind, but mutations can have significantly different effects - they can be neutral, disadvantageous or advantageous, for example, and differingly so for populations as against individuals within those populations - but the processes by which they become fixed in a population have deterministic components in that natural selection, for example, is one of the processes that 'chooses' amongst those mutations.

It appears you agree with me that evolutionism makes the statement of religion that says...â€man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mindâ€? My point all along.

Although many details remain to be worked out, it is already evident that all the objective phenomena of the history of life can be explained by purely naturalistic or, in a proper sense of the sometimes abused word, materialistic factors. They are readily explicable on the basis of differential reproduction in populations (the main factor in the modern conception of natural selection) and of the mainly random interplay of the known processes of heredity. ...Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind." ~ Gaylord Simpson, Darwinian/atheist​

 

[zeke]

Do I take it from this statement that you don't think there is enough such time, but that if there was then Darwinism would be eminently plausible?

Scientifically, I don't think classical Darwinism would be "eminently plausible" given 40 bn years. Life does not arise from non-life and dinos don't transform themselves into birds via random, purposeless processes.

 

[zeke]

Yes, there is: I don't know is one; polytheism is another. Then there's deism and animism. Probably others, too.

I respectfully disagree - in the reality that most of us choose to live in you only have two choices - (1) life from non-life via cold, purposeless chance (an absurdity) or (2) special creation via a loving God, an anathema to evolutionists.

"If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces and radiation, how has it come into being? I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it." ~ H.J. Lipson (Professor of Physics), "A physicist looks at evolution"​

 

[zeke]

I bow out of the discussion, as I feel there are better things to do than run around in a circle.

Okay - but I felt we were getting close to finding out where you were.

 

[zeke]

Why, for example, should the God of YECism be preferred over Lord Brahma, if indeed this is the case?

It is the case for the obvious reasons. Have you ever known Jesus the Christ?

Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. "If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him."
(Joh 14:6-7)​

Are you a Vedic seer?

 

[lordkalvan]

But you are only raising your speculation up one notch. By what process did your imagined "advanced aliens" come into existence. Was it life from non-life via purposeless chance (an absurdity) or special creation via a Designer. You are back to your original choices. Which do you choose?

Turtles all the way down. Or maybe something analogous to Robert Heinlein's 'All You Zombies'. The point is, you were offering us an either/or fallacy.

Do you *know* life is not the result of a Creator or is that a position you hold via great faith? Of course we all have the answer.

See my pink unicorn argument that you were so handwavingly dismissive of.

Science is not the only avenue man has for knowledge.

However, it appears to be the best avenue we have available for coming to an understanding about the natural world. Certainly, you have shown us nothing to the contrary.

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth......So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." Gen 1:26-27​

And it's funny that, whenever we are told that God said something and what he meant by what he said, it is human lips doing the talking or human hands doing the writing.

Are you going to present you man-chimp evidence anytime soon?

As soon as you get round to providing us with those explanations of the terms you have used to prejudge evidence as unacceptable to you so that i can more usefully spend my time arguing from evidence that is acceptable to you. I would have thought you would have understood this by now.

ETA And can you explain why an omniscient, omnipotent creator-god could not have simply established the conditions - i.e. created the Universe in the beginning - in which life could originate and evolve entirely naturalistically? Or do you wish to limit God to only your understanding of what he might be capable of?

 

[lordkalvan]

It appears you agree with me that evolutionism makes the statement of religion that says...”man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind”? My point all along.

Although many details remain to be worked out, it is already evident that all the objective phenomena of the history of life can be explained by purely naturalistic or, in a proper sense of the sometimes abused word, materialistic factors. They are readily explicable on the basis of differential reproduction in populations (the main factor in the modern conception of natural selection) and of the mainly random interplay of the known processes of heredity. ...Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind." ~ Gaylord Simpson, Darwinian/atheist​

You have yet to show that it's a 'statement of religion' rather than a simple observation that is consistent with observed evidence. Also, this was not the point that I was responding to.

 

[lordkalvan]

Scientifically, I don't think classical Darwinism would be "eminently plausible" given 40 bn years.

Why not?

Life does not arise from non-life...

You are entitled to believe this, but you have given us no reason to accept your categorical assertion that the OOL cannot have a naturalistic explanation.

...and dinos don't transform themselves into birds via random, purposeless processes.

They're not wholly random, as others have tried to explain to you as well: natural selection is an example of a process that 'chooses' according to a relatively simple but successful algorithm - so successful, in fact, that engineers use it to help design mechanical systems.

 

[lordkalvan]

I respectfully disagree - in the reality that most of us choose to live in you only have two choices - (1) life from non-life via cold, purposeless chance (an absurdity) or (2) special creation via a loving God, an anathema to evolutionists.

"If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces and radiation, how has it come into being? I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it." ~ H.J. Lipson (Professor of Physics), "A physicist looks at evolution"​

You mean 'most of us' in the sense of 'significantly less than half of us', I imagine. Again, you have failed to demonstrate by anything other than assertion that the OOL cannot have a naturalistic explanation and, as far as I can see from yet another of your constant appeals to authority, neither has Lipson. Do you and Lipson exclude the possibility of creation by Lord Brahma, who recreates the entire Universe every 4 billion some years or so and, if so, why?

ETA In the same journal in a later comment relating to the same article Lipson also remarked that -

'Several people have given clear indications that they do not understand Darwin's theory. The Theory does not merely say that species have slowly evolved: that is obvious from the fossil record.'

- H. J. Lipson, "A physicist looks at evolution - a rejoinder", Physics Bulletin, December 1980, pg 337.

Source: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html

Given that you seem to regard Lipson as sufficient an authority to quote him on the OOL, do you also regard him as an equal authority on evolution? He is a physicist, after all.

 

[lordkalvan]

It is the case for the obvious reasons. Have you ever known Jesus the Christ?

Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. "If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him."
(Joh 14:6-7)​

Are you a Vedic seer?

What are 'the obvious reasons' and what difference does it make whether I am 'a Vedic seer' or not? You are repeatedly asking me questions about what I am, but never answer questions that ask what you are. Why should you expect the courtesy of an answer that you do not appear to be prepared to extend to others?

ETA Why did you choose to respond to only part of my post, ignoring the part that asked you how the data can be interpreted as supporting common design? You have only not been answering this question since it was first asked many, many posts ago.

 

[zeke]

What are 'the obvious reasons'...

The 'obvious' is the fact that Jesus Christ is "The Way, the Truth, and the Life". Have you ever known Jesus? I don't think you answered that question.

...what difference does it make whether I am 'a Vedic seer' or not?

Well, those who get their knowledge from the Vedas sometimes have problems with reality. Remember, in the reality that most of us choose to live in you only have two choices - (1) life from non-life via cold, purposeless chance (an absurdity) or (2) special creation via a loving God, an anathema to evolutionists. Is God an an anathema to you? Is cold, purposeless chance your reality?

Are you still planning to present your evidence from science for your man-chimp notion or are the facts getting in the way of your bedtime story? Or maybe you have about run your course? When you are reduced to discussing your Lord Brahma and pink unicorns you are running on empty.

 

[zeke]

Given that you seem to regard Lipson as sufficient an authority to quote him on the OOL, do you also regard him as an equal authority on evolution? He is a physicist, after all.

The professor was simply speaking his mind as an agnostic and Darwinist. His acknowledgement of Darwinism was part of his worldview - I would expect nothing less. But his admission holds true - with the failure of science to demonstrate life coming from non life via naturalism one is left with the only logical choice - a Creator. As he correctly states..."we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation". Where does that leave you?

"If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces and radiation, how has it come into being? I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it." ~ H.J. Lipson (Professor of Physics), "A physicist looks at evolution"​

 

[zeke]

You have yet to show that it's a 'statement of religion' rather than a simple observation that is consistent with observed evidence. Also, this was not the point that I was responding to.

But it is obvious that the statement...

”man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind”​

is a statement of religion - unless you can provide evidence to prove it true - can you? Of course you can't. And I have presented the truth to you - life came from God. Remember, your version of scientism is flawed and there are other sources of knowledge. You can reject the truth but it remains true...

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth......So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." Gen 1:26-27

Scientism refers to a belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints. ~ Wikipedia
​

 

[lordkalvan]

The 'obvious' is the fact that Jesus Christ is "The Way, the Truth, and the Life".

Again, you may and are entitled to assert it, but simply asserting something does not make it so.

Have you ever known Jesus? I don't think you answered that question.

Well, given the number of questions you choose not to answer, why would this bother you?

Well, those who get their knowledge from the Vedas sometimes have problems with reality.

Well, as you have failed to demonstrate this to be any more the case than amongst any other group of believers or non-believers, I am tempted to ask, so what?

Remember, in the reality that most of us choose to live in you only have two choices - (1) life from non-life via cold, purposeless chance (an absurdity) or (2) special creation via a loving God, an anathema to evolutionists.

And as has been pointed out to you, you are offering us a false dilemma, either/or fallacy on several levels.

Is God an an anathema to you?

I think a moderator has already pointed out to you that these threads are not the appropriate place to harass someone about their belief or lack of belief in God.

Is cold, purposeless chance your reality?

Evolution does not have anthropomorphic qualities, just like gravity, nuclear physics and climatology don't either. They just are.

Are you still planning to present your evidence from science for your man-chimp notion or are the facts getting in the way of your bedtime story? Or maybe you have about run your course?

Honestly, just how much difficulty do you have taking on board what i have said to you about this?

When you are reduced to discussing your Lord Brahma and pink unicorns you are running on empty.

And yet you seem quite incapable of making reasoned answers in response to these arguments, but are reduced to simple hand waving and put-downs, so I guess that means my tank has at least a little more intellectual juice in it than yours does. I note in passing that you continue to avoid answering questions asked in posts you are responding to, but still expect others to answer yours. Why is that?

 

[lordkalvan]

The professor was simply speaking his mind as an agnostic and Darwinist. His acknowledgement of Darwinism was part of his worldview - I would expect nothing less. But his admission holds true - with the failure of science to demonstrate life coming from non life via naturalism one is left with the only logical choice - a Creator. As he correctly states..."we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation". Where does that leave you?

"If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces and radiation, how has it come into being? I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it." ~ H.J. Lipson (Professor of Physics), "A physicist looks at evolution"​

Yes, I know you can post the same thing over and over, but I am more interested in wondering why, as a physicist, you regard him as correct about one thing, but wrong about another - neither of which fall within his field of competence as such. Is it simply because the one panders to your pre-existing ideas and the other doesn't? And no, the only choice is not the one you assert, as has been pointed out to you already.

 

[zeke]

I'm going to be repetitive again...

Yes you are - to the point of ad nauseam. When/if you can muster up support for your non-scientific man-chimp notion post it for our review and please - no pink unicorns, bedtime stories or empty hand-waving. But without those props what do you have left - nothing.

 

[lordkalvan]

But it is obvious that the statement...

”man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind”​

is a statement of religion...

Why is it 'obvious'? Continually asserting something to be so does not make it so, when will you grasp this?

...unless you can provide evidence to prove it true - can you? Of course you can't.

Again, it's not my job to disprove your assertions, but yours to provide substance to them, something you appear incapable or unwilling to do.

And I have presented the truth to you - life came from God.

Unsupported assertion, that what you have presented is the truth.

Remember, your version of scientism is flawed and there are other sources of knowledge.

Maybe so, but you have failed to demonstrate these to any effect.

You can reject the truth but it remains true..."And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth......So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." Gen 1:26-27

More unsupported assertion, that what you have presented is the truth. It's still your human fallibility claiming to know what God has in mind and to understand it better than anyone else.

Scientism refers to a belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints. ~ Wikipedia

Well, you have failed to show that any other explanation for natural phenomena and the natural world provides a better account, so I'm not altogether sure what your point is.

 

[lordkalvan]

Yes you are - to the point of ad nauseam. When/if you can muster up support for your non-scientific man-chimp notion post it for our review and please - no pink unicorns, bedtime stories or empty hand-waving. But without those props what do you have left - nothing.

You seem to be stuck in a time-warp. Perhaps you would be better occupied addressing yourself to arguments and questions in recent posts rather than inviting me to point out your continued avoidance concerning this topic?