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

[zeke]

I believe God created nature and its processes, He instilled the laws of physics, all while knowing what it would ultimately lead to -- man.

"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​

I don' t think you realize how out of touch with reality your thinking is when examined under the microscope of fundamental Darwinian theory - the driving engine for atheism today. Darwinism requires a godless, purposeless and purely naturalistic process that did not have man in mind. Contrast that pathetic error with the truth taught in Holy Writ that Man is God's crowning achievement in creation - created in the very *image of God*.

How does your version of evolution differ from the version preached by the Devil's Chaplain, Richard Dawkins? Please be specific and explain how you can compromise the truth taught in God's word with the fundamental assertion of Darwinian theory that man is the result of a godless, purposeless and purely naturalistic process? I don't think it can be done.

"Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism invented by the mind of man... Darwinism provided an explanation big enough and eloquent enough to replace God. I have been an atheist ever since. It was hard to be an atheist before Darwin..." -Richard Dawkins

"As far as Christianity was concerned, the advent of the theory of evolution and the elimination of traditional teleological thinking was catastrophic.---Despite the attempt by liberal Christianity to disguise the point, no biblically derived religion can really be compromised with the fundamental assertion of Darwinian theory." -Michael Denton, Evolution, A Theory in Crisis

"Although many details remain to be worked out, it's already evident that all the objective phenomenon of the history of life can be explained by purely naturalistic factors... Man is the result of a purposeless and naturalistic... process that did not have him in mind." -Gaylord Simpson, Darwinist/paleontologist.​

 

[zeke]

When you can offer reasoned argument to support your various assertions - such as that homology supports common design and that the nested hierarchy also supports common design - then you may have a point, but until then you appear to be just blowing smoke.

As I have already explained - nested hierarchy and homology can accommodate common design as well as common ancestry - therefore, it is not evidence for or against either theory but the obvious question remains - when will you provide your evidence to support your error that nested hierarchies and homologies can only accommodate common ancestry? You have been searching for a long time - have you found it yet? Remember, Gould remarked that homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry.

The existence of homologous structures merely raises questions of relationship, but it cannot answer them. This is why Stephen Gould remarked that homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry. Both Darwinists and design proponents can explain the existence of homologies within their respective frameworks of interpretation. Because of this, neither side can disprove the other’s interpretation of homology, and neither view stands solely on its own interpretation of homology. ~ Davis and Kenyon​

You are the only person I know who disagrees. I would really like to know why. Give it a shot.

Do you agree with me and Linnaeus that nested hierarchy is evidence for God's design in nature. If not, why not? You are back to square-one my friend. BTW - have you found you yet missing in action evidence that man and chimp have a common ancestor? You made the big boast but now you can't quite deliver. What's with that?

It has been known since Aristotle that species tend to cluster in a hierarchical pattern, and in the eighteenth century Linnaeus saw it as a reflection of the Creator’s divine plan. Obviously this pattern does not force one to embrace evolution. Also, Darwin’s law of natural selection does not predict this pattern. He had to devise a special explanation—his principle of divergence—to fit this striking pattern into his overall theory. To be sure, evolution can accommodate this hierarchical pattern, but the pattern is not necessarily implied by evolution. (Hunter, 108.)​

 

[zeke]

Oh, and what are your sources for your various appeals to authority, and who are these alleged authorities anyway and why should their unsupported opinions be valued any more highly than yours?

The real question remains - can you dispute what they present? I think not.

 

[zeke]

Even if the Bible was inspired by God, it was written down by men from a pre-scientific, patriarchal society and is expressed in terms that would make sense to their frame of reference.

Your statement is self-contradictory. God is by definition "all knowing" and the Bible was written by men inspired by the all-knowing God. God was there 'in the beginning' and therefore God knows how creation unfolded. The Bible does not even hint that God created via the godless, purposeless and purely naturalistic process presented in Darwinism - does it?

 

[lordkalvan]

As I have already explained - nested hierarchy and homology can accommodate common design as well as common ancestry - therefore, it is not evidence for or against either theory but the obvious question remains - when will you provide your evidence to support your error that nested hierarchies and homologies can only accommodate common ancestry?

1. You have explained nothing, but simply continue to assert it. Please tell us how and why the nested hierarchy and homology 'accommodate' common design.

2. Um, you have claimed that the evidence supports common design, therefore it is your responsibility to show how this is the case,not demand that others show you how this is not correct.

You have been searching for a long time - have you found it yet?

I have not been searching because it is not my intellectual responsibility to provide you with evidence against something that you have simply asserted.

Remember, Gould remarked that homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry.

I remember that you have been shown that both your claim to recollect that Gould said any such thing in the paper you saw on the Internet some indeterminate time ago and the secondary citation that you have provided as your only actual source - Davis and Kenyon - fail to substantiate your claim, so it is dishonest of you to continue to assert this as if it is a matter of fact.

The existence of homologous structures merely raises questions of relationship, but it cannot answer them. This is why Stephen Gould remarked that homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry. Both Darwinists and design proponents can explain the existence of homologies within their respective frameworks of interpretation. Because of this, neither side can disprove the other’s interpretation of homology, and neither view stands solely on its own interpretation of homology. ~ Davis and Kenyon​

You are the only person I know who disagrees. I would really like to know why. Give it a shot.

You can quote this misrepresentation as often as you like, but it will continue to remain a misrepresentation and is fundamentally dishonest.

Do you agree with me and Linnaeus that nested hierarchy is evidence for God's design in nature. If not, why not?

I neither agree not disagree with an assertion that has no substance behind it. Provide your reasoned argument to support this opinion and we can discuss its merits.

You are back to square-one my friend.

On the contrary,my friend, we are exactly where we have been for a long time now - waiting for you ro support your claims, assertions, opinions and denials with reasoned, evidenced argument.

BTW - have you found you yet missing in action evidence that man and chimp have a common ancestor? You made the big boast but now you can't quite deliver. What's with that?

What's with it is that you appear to have a significant reading comprehension failure. Here's what I said on this very page:

'As to your repeated and tiresome demands that anyone 'prove' to your satisfaction that H sap and chimps have a common ancestor, when you get around to clarifying the exclusions you have made as to what evidence is acceptable to you in this case, I will be happy to discuss the question in terms of evidence that is acceptable to you. I think it is clear to everyone that you are avoiding offering such clarification, either because you cannot provide it or because you are afraid of the consequences.'

Exactly what do you fail to understand about this request?

It has been known since Aristotle that species tend to cluster in a hierarchical pattern, and in the eighteenth century Linnaeus saw it as a reflection of the Creator’s divine plan. Obviously this pattern does not force one to embrace evolution. Also, Darwin’s law of natural selection does not predict this pattern. He had to devise a special explanation—his principle of divergence—to fit this striking pattern into his overall theory. To be sure, evolution can accommodate this hierarchical pattern, but the pattern is not necessarily implied by evolution. (Hunter, 108.)​

Very good. Now tell me who Hunter is, what the source is and why I should value his/her unsupported opinion and assertions any more than I value yours?

 

[lordkalvan]

The real question remains - can you dispute what they present? I think not.

Show us the basis for their assertions and opinions and we will discuss what merit they may or may not have. Simply presenting bald statements and demanding that others refute them is not how debates are carried on. If you make an argument, you are supposed to support it and explain why it has any force.

 

[zeke]

Simply presenting bald statements and demanding that others refute them is not how debates are carried on.

But isn't that you modus operandi - simply presenting bald statements with a bit of hand-waiving? Where is your boasted evidence that proves man and chimp have a common ancestor? Your lack of presentation is evidence that you have no evidence. You make the dogmatic (and illogical) claim that nested hierarchy and homology can only accommodate common ancestry but you have completely failed to support your notion. What's with that?

 

[lordkalvan]

Your statement is self-contradictory.

So is it your case that fallible men are not responsible for writing the Bible? Do you have evidence to support this view?

God is by definition "all knowing" and the Bible was written by men inspired by the all-knowing God.

Well, that would be assuming your conclusion, but even if we grant your initial premise, it does not follow that fallible men, no matter how inspired, would understand that word in anything other than terms appropriate to their cultural experience and knowledge. If you wish to claim the contrary, you need to provide some evidence to support it.

God was there 'in the beginning' and therefore God knows how creation unfolded.

You are entitled to believe this, but this still does not provide evidence that fallible men interpreted this knowledge correctly.

The Bible does not even hint that God created via the godless, purposeless and purely naturalistic process presented in Darwinism - does it?

Evolutionary theory per se says nothing about the origins of the soul (if it exists) or life. If you keep making this mistake, you will continue to misunderstand why scientists who are Christians like Francis Collins and Kenneth Miller (amongst many others) have no difficulty at all in reconciling God and evolution. Tell us again why an all-powerful, all-knowing God could not have created the conditions in which life could have developed naturalistically and why evolution could not be that God's mechanism for creating the diversity of life we see around us and in the fossil record?

 

[lordkalvan]

But isn't that you modus operandi - simply presenting bald statements with a bit of hand-waiving? Where is your boasted evidence that proves man and chimp have a common ancestor? Your lack of presentation is evidence that you have no evidence.

This is the last time I will say this. Please read it carefully and if you have difficulty understanding what I am saying, let me know and I will do my best to make my meaning clearer:

'As to your repeated and tiresome demands that anyone 'prove' to your satisfaction that H sap and chimps have a common ancestor, when you get around to clarifying the exclusions you have made as to what evidence is acceptable to you in this case, I will be happy to discuss the question in terms of evidence that is acceptable to you. I think it is clear to everyone that you are avoiding offering such clarification, either because you cannot provide it or because you are afraid of the consequences.'

You make the dogmatic (and illogical) claim that nested hierarchy and homology can only accommodate common ancestry but you have completely failed to support your notion. What's with that?

I have made no such claim, to the best of my knowledge, but have simply asked you to support your own that both the nested hierarchy and homology support common design. You seem determined to avoid any risk of having to expose your ideas to critical review by so doing. Why is that?

 

[zeke]

I have not been searching because it is not my intellectual responsibility to provide you with evidence against something that you have simply asserted.

Lol - you appear to think that you have no "intellectual responsibility" and yet you are the one who has boasted to have evidence that proves man and chimp have a common ancestor. But when pressed to present that elusive evidence your "intellectual responsibility" shrinks into intellectual impotence. It really makes your argument look rather weak and anemic. Why not give us your one best evidence from science to support you error.

Listen...the sound of silence...

 

[lordkalvan]

^ Please read Post 49 again.

 

[zeke]

'As to your repeated and tiresome demands that anyone 'prove' to your satisfaction that H sap and chimps have a common ancestor, when you get around to clarifying the exclusions you have made as to what evidence is acceptable to you in this case, I will be happy to discuss the question in terms of evidence that is acceptable to you.

I have repeatedly answered that question - the required evidence is that which is based on a scientific method. Please, no Darwinian circularity, speculations based on naturalism or empty hand-waving. You're up.

 

[zeke]

^ Please read Post 49 again.

Interpretation: kalvan does not have the required evidence - if he had he would have presented it already.

 

[zeke]

I have made no such claim, to the best of my knowledge, but have simply asked you to support your own that both the nested hierarchy and homology support common design.

The you agree with me, Collins and Gould that nested hierarchy and homology can accommodate common design and well as common ancestry? If not, why not?

 

[zeke]

Very good. Now tell me who Hunter is, what the source is and why I should value his/her unsupported opinion and assertions any more than I value yours?

I referenced my source and provided the web page for your review. Is Hunter correct - hierarchical patterns do not force one to embrace Darwinian evolution and Darwin’s concept of natural selection does not predict that pattern? Do you agree with me, Hunter, Collins and Gould that nested hierarchy and homology can accommodate common design and well as common ancestry? If not, why not?

 

[lordkalvan]

I have repeatedly answered that question - the required evidence is that which is based on a scientific method. Please, no Darwinian circularity, speculations based on naturalism or empty hand-waving. You're up.

Definitions, please, plus for all those other exclusions you set up that I asked you about before.

 

[lordkalvan]

Interpretation: kalvan does not have the required evidence - if he had he would have presented it already.

When you have a mature answer to offer, get back to me, but in the meantime you should learn to resist the temptation to engage in playground taunting.

 

[lordkalvan]

I referenced my source and provided the web page for your review. Is Hunter correct - hierarchical patterns do not force one to embrace Darwinian evolution and Darwin’s concept of natural selection does not predict that pattern?

It is not my responsibility to trawl the Internet seeking substantiation for your secondhand assertions; it is your job to support your claims, not mine to spend time finding out whether they have any merit.

Do you agree with me, Hunter, Collins and Gould that nested hierarchy and homology can accommodate common design and well as common ancestry? If not, why not?

I agree that continuing to claim Gould says something you have been unable to show he said is dishonest. I also agree that assertions that homologies and the nested hierarchy support common design are the responsibility of those making them to support. I can neither agree nor disagree with something you have offered no reason to make that judgement about.

 

[Classik]

[size="+2"]Thread locked!!![/size]

So far so good. You guys should go and rest. I am locking this thread. Come back on the 32nd of March.

 

[Classik]

:toofunny

See what Darwin has caused!
what if Darwin has told a lie?
what if he's right?

(Darwin is somewhere now laughing or crying, while folks are here enjoying themselves)

Me and my family will serve the Lord.

---------
You guys make me laugh! And I enjoy the contributions.

I believe in evolution, the evolution of Spanish Football, La Liga. Come visit us at fcbarcelona.com