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

[lordkalvan]

My posts are available - you can do your own research. The questions have been answered more than once - you just do not like the answers.

Rather than post this blatant dodge, you would serve your cause better by simply stepping up and acknowledging that you have done no such thing. I cannot like or dislike answers that have not been provided.

One more time...

scientific method: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses. ~ Merriam-Webster​

So you accept as valid evidence argument from research into morphology (shared physical traits), the fossil record, genetic analysis and developmental embryology, for example, or will you simply dismiss such evidence as pseudoscience, Darwinian mythology, bedtime stories and fallacious rhetoric?

I ask you again - do you have the required evidence that proves man and chimp have a common ancestor? That would be 'yes I do' or 'no, I do not'. And your answer is...

My answer at the moment is that science deals in evidence, not proof. Are you willing to discuss evidence that amounts to certainty beyond reasonable doubt (sufficient for a court of law, for example) or are you only interested in evidence that amounts to 100% certainty (i.e. the equivalent of mathematical proof) according to whatever criteria you have set up in your own mind to determine this? Insofar as you have simply denied or ignored all the evidence that Barbarian has provided you with for no more reason than that it contradicts your pre-existing conclusions, I rather expect that anything I put before you will be summarily dismissed for the same reason.

 

[Sparkey]

Off topic, but claiming to be able to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" is exageration. That level of proof is only required in criminal trials (for US law). Torts and civil cases require a mere preponderance of the evidence or 'clear and convincing evidence' (the later is probably the term you mean). The "reasonable doubt" that you've mentioned would also be the doubt held in the minds of 12 jurors. Not yours, nor your opponents. You may want to rethink your offer as it is highly doubtful that it could be accomplished (especially here, on a Christian forum). You'd have to start by disqualifying me from the jury, for instance.

Quoting from an online legal dictionary:

Reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof used in court. In civil litigation the standard of proof is either proof by a preponderance of the evidence or proof by clear and convincing evidence. These are lower burdens of proof. A preponderance of the evidence simply means that one side has more evidence in its favor than the other, even by the smallest degree. Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that establishes a high probability that the fact sought to be proved is true. The main reason that the high proof standard of reasonable doubt is used in criminal trials is that criminal trials can result in the deprivation of a defendant's liberty or in the defendant's death, outcomes far more severe than occur in civil trials where money damages are the common remedy.

​

​

 

[lordkalvan]

Off topic, but claiming to be able to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" is exageration. That level of proof is only required in criminal trials (for US law). Torts and civil cases require a mere preponderance of the evidence or 'clear and convincing evidence' (the later is probably the term you mean). The "reasonable doubt" that you've mentioned would also be the doubt held in the minds of 12 jurors. Not yours, nor your opponents. You may want to rethink your offer as it is highly doubtful that it could be accomplished (especially here, on a Christian forum). You'd have to start by disqualifying me from the jury, for instance.

Quoting from an online legal dictionary:

Reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof used in court. In civil litigation the standard of proof is either proof by a preponderance of the evidence or proof by clear and convincing evidence. These are lower burdens of proof. A preponderance of the evidence simply means that one side has more evidence in its favor than the other, even by the smallest degree. Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that establishes a high probability that the fact sought to be proved is true. The main reason that the high proof standard of reasonable doubt is used in criminal trials is that criminal trials can result in the deprivation of a defendant's liberty or in the defendant's death, outcomes far more severe than occur in civil trials where money damages are the common remedy.

​

​

Fair points all and I was probably mistaken in using my court of (criminal) law example. My point is that I suspect zeke is asking for a standard of evidence that is impossible to provide in his eyes - as evidenced by his responses to Barbarian - and I am not really prepared to waste my time presenting a reasoned argument that he will simply dismiss as pseudoscience, Darwinian mythology, bedtime stories and fallacious rhetoric. I have no doubt that I can convince zeke (or you, by your admission) otherwise.

 

[Sparkey]

Fair points all and I was probably mistaken in using my court of (criminal) law example. My point is that I suspect zeke's is asking for a standard of evidence that is impossible to provide in his eyes - as evidenced by his responses to Barbarian - and I am not really prepared to waste my time presenting a reasoned argument that he will simply dismiss as pseudoscience, Darwinian mythology, bedtime stories and fallacious rhetoric. I have no doubt that I can convince zeke (or you, by your admission) otherwise.

Regarding "beyond reasonable doubt," since I place high value on Scripture, you're correct (about me). But as far as "clear and convincing" evidence - both you and ohters have already produced that much. I do believe there are clear lines (and we've spoken of my belief before regarding "kinds and their seed") but your evidence previously presented is sufficiently clear and convincing enough to cause me to say, "I don't know where the lines are drawn exactly." Frankly, that's pretty good.

 

[lordkalvan]

Regarding "beyond reasonable doubt," since I place high value on Scripture, you're correct (about me). But as far as "clear and convincing" evidence - both you and ohters have already produced that much. I do believe there are clear lines (and we've spoken of my belief before regarding "kinds and their seed") but your evidence previously presented is sufficiently clear and convincing enough to cause me to say, "I don't know where the lines are drawn exactly." Frankly, that's pretty good.

Thanks for that.

 

[pHghost]

Lol -how much time do you have? Maybe you can help our mutual friend present the evidence he cannot find to support the notion he cannot support - the Darwinian myth that man and chimp have a common ancestor. Can you help?

I support evolution, not necessarily Darwinism.
Read on for details.

So show me where classical Darwinism accepts God. Take your time.

Sorry, that is an absurd request. Please show me where the Law of Gravity accepts God. It doesn't, because it isn't its purpose. Yet you cannot dispute its validity and it in no way goes against God.

Because the atheist is correct. Are you suggesting atheists are not trustworthy?

If you talk to them about religion, mostly they aren't trustworthy, correct, as their view is heavily biased. It is the same with the fundamentally religious. If you want a reasonable answer, it is best to talk to someone who tries to look at both sides of the coin, like Christian scientists, many theologians, etc.

And then He goes on a long vacation? Can you be a little more specific? How did God create man in His image via naturalism?

No, God stays involved. He is ever-present. He guides his whole creation.

God gave man a soul. That is how he created him in his image. Whether our physical bodies evolved into what we are today from a common ancestor in not consequential.

 

[Sparkey]

Thanks for that.

Well, I didn't say it well enough. Is the evidence that you've presented clear? Absolutely. Is it convincing? Take a look around, yes! Very. I'd stop short of saying that it was compelling but that's just me. I very much appreciate the work that you've put into your side of the discussion as well as the restraint you use while in conversation with the other side. It can get frustrating especially when it goes back to the "same ol', same ol' thing," so often.

Another interesting thing about the "reasonable doubt" standard is that statements could not be admitted without the so-called Miranda warning. There would be no "quote mining". :toofunny

 

[lordkalvan]

Well, I didn't say it well enough. Is the evidence that you've presented clear? Absolutely. Is it convincing? Take a look around, yes! Very. I'd stop short of saying that it was compelling but that's just me. I very much appreciate the work that you've put into your side of the discussion as well as the restraint you use while in conversation with the other side. It can get frustrating especially when it goes back to the "same ol', same ol' thing," so often.

I thought you said it entirely well enough.

Another interesting thing about the "reasonable doubt" standard is that statements could not be admitted without the so-called Miranda warning. There would be no "quote mining". :toofunny

Keyboard meet coffee moment. Thanks for the laugh!

 

[zeke]

So you accept as valid evidence argument from research into morphology (shared physical traits), the fossil record, genetic analysis and developmental embryology, for example, or will you simply dismiss such evidence as pseudoscience, Darwinian mythology, bedtime stories and fallacious rhetoric?

As noted – morphology, genetic similarities, etc can support an intelligent designer who designed similar body plans for man and chimp as easily as it can support your notion of common ancestry. Linnaeus saw such patterns as a reflection of God's design. Easy concept. Darwinism did not predict these patterns.

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.)​

The question remains – can you finally present your evidence using the scientific method - evidence that proves man and chimp have a common ancestor? Please, no pseudoscience, Darwinian mythology, bedtime stories, etc. Thanks in advance if you decide to do what you think you can do. I will check back from time to time - maybe you will find what you seek... ;)

 

[lordkalvan]

As noted – morphology, genetic similarities, etc can support an intelligent designer who designed similar body plans for man and chimp as easily as it can support your notion of common ancestry. Linnaeus saw such patterns as a reflection of God's design. Easy concept. Darwinism did not predict these patterns.

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.)​

The question remains – can you finally present your evidence using the scientific method - evidence that proves man and chimp have a common ancestor? Please, no pseudoscience, Darwinian mythology, bedtime stories, etc. Thanks in advance if you decide to do what you think you can do. I will check back from time to time - maybe you will find what you seek... ;)

If it's such an easy concept, you will have no trouble explaining it, just like you will have no trouble telling us what constitutes pseudoscience, mythology, bedtime stories, fallacious rhetoric and why homologies support common design. Simply reasserting the same ol' same ol' over and over does not constitute an explanation and neither does quoting a supposed authority who just asserts the same thing as well.

I was seeking a reasoned, evidenced argument from you to support your claims and to explain your pre-judged objections to evidence for evolution, but clearly I was seeking in vain. Best not to check back at all unless you are prepared to provide what you demand of others.

 

[zeke]

If it's such an easy concept, you will have no trouble explaining it, just like you will have no trouble telling us what constitutes pseudoscience, mythology, bedtime stories, fallacious rhetoric and why homologies support common design. Simply reasserting the same ol' same ol' over and over does not constitute an explanation and neither does quoting a supposed authority who just asserts the same thing as well.

I was seeking a reasoned, evidenced argument from you to support your claims and to explain your pre-judged objections to evidence for evolution, but clearly I was seeking in vain. Best not to check back at all unless you are prepared to provide what you demand of others.

You continue to dance my friend - why? Your continued failure to present even your one-best evidence that proves man and chimp have a common ancestor is strong evidence that you have no evidence. Folks – this is typical of the Darwinian “defense” when presenting mythology as science. Darwinism did not predict these patterns that my friend relies on for his ‘proof’.

Linnaeus saw such patterns as a reflection of the Creator’s divine plan. Hierarchical patterns, homologies, etc. do not force one to embrace the naturalism-Darwinism that excludes a Creator-God. My friend recognizes this fact – thus he fails to do that which he boasted he could do. Genetic similarities can support an intelligent designer who designed similar body plans as easily as it can support the creation myth of universal common ancestry.

Thanks in advance kalvan if you decide to do what can’t be done. It will be entertaining. Who knows – maybe the random luck required to transform dinos into birds will smile on you. Please try to avoid the worn-out pseudoscience and bedtime stories associated with Darwinism. I will check back from time to time to see how your luck is holding out.

 

[Sparkey]

In my Ethnomathmatics class last quarter the professor was an anthropologist. During one segment of her presentation she introduced us to fractal geometry. Her objective was to show the mathematical basis of African design and she brought up several discussions including man's 'innate mathematical abilities'. During one lecture she also spoke about 'infinity' and stated that there was an infinite amount of space in between each grain of sand on the seashore, hence the shoreline could never be measured. The quality of infinity was (according to her) a required characteristic of all fractals. To be fair, it was an introductory statement and she went on to clarify with examples but the concept didn't sit well with me.

I asked if she had heard of Planck's constant. She stated that she had but then told a story about how in an early math (pre-algebra) class her teacher had thrown a piece of chalk at her and how that incident underscored her lack of appreciation for traditional mathematics. She stated that she had not "gone much further" than elementary algebra. But even from her confessed position of ignorance she argued that my point, that her assertion about lengths and infinity was not grounded in reality, was debatable and I was therefor wrong.

I wanted to ask her if she had ever read Aristotle's convincing proof that heavy bodies fall faster than light bodies and show that it is easy to prove something that isn't true when it isn't grounded in mechanical reality. Galileo showed how a simple experiment may point out the fallacy. Even Maxwell's brilliant work was not accepted until Hertz proved in the laboratory that electromagnetic waves do exist. Maxwell provided the theory and mathematical rigour but Hertz put us in the driver's seat.

The point that I am trying to work toward is that mechanics and labwork are integral to science. Hypotheses need to be established in the lab as well as in the minds of a majority of scientists. I liked Lamarkianism and thought that the concepts may have been useful but even that was theoretical in nature and not grounded in physical proof. DNA research and the Human Genome Project offered some hope for awhile and great strides have been made in terms of scientific knowledge but the cart that carries one type or kind of animal to another has not been found, nor expounded.

Setting aside the inflammatory and sometimes insulting language I believe that the questions that have been discussed here surrounding "Myth," "Pseudoscience," and/or "Bedtime Stories," it seems that the trouble might be avoided by a simple, honest question: "What mechanism or "cart" can be shown capable of such wonder to enable transport of one kind (and their seed) beyond the loose classifications found in Genesis? What evidence beyond mere supposition ("we see the result therefor it MUST have happened" -- used by both sides) exists that can resolve the two different points of view?

I don't have, nor have I heard of, any "proof" that what the theory of evolution states can not be true, but I wonder if there is allegation that my view (that God created kinds and their seed) is impossible and not simply unobserved.

 

[zeke]

I don't have, nor have I heard of, any "proof" that what the theory of evolution states can not be true, but I wonder if there is allegation that my view (that God created kinds and their seed) is impossible and not simply unobserved.

Biological evolution (science) is based on scientific fact and does not conflict with the truth revealed in Holy Writ that "God created". The statement often presented by Darwinians that evolution 'proves' theropds evolved into birds is a statement of religion - not a statement of science. There is no scientific evidence that 'proves' God did not create in the beginning. The naturalism required by atheism is a fallacy.

Setting aside the inflammatory and sometimes insulting language I believe that the questions that have been discussed here surrounding "Myth," "Pseudoscience," and/or "Bedtime Stories"...

Pointing out that Darwinian myth is based on "Pseudoscience," and/or "Bedtime Stories"... is neither inflammatory nor insulting - it is fact. ;)

 

[Sparkey]

Biological evolution (science) is based on scientific fact and does not conflict with the truth revealed in Holy Writ that "God created". The statement often presented by Darwinians that evolution 'proves' theropds evolved into birds is a statement of religion - not a statement of science. There is no scientific evidence that 'proves' God did not create in the beginning. The naturalism required by atheism is a fallacy.


Pointing out that Darwinian myth is based on "Pseudoscience," and/or "Bedtime Stories"... is neither inflammatory nor insulting - it is fact. ;)

It being a fact is your opinion and I don't want to argue it.

My preference would be to quote the opinion of another, more famous individual:

There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.

 

[zeke]

It being a fact is your opinion and I don't want to argue it.

No - it is a fact--mythology is not science.

My preference would be to quote the opinion of another, more famous individual

Samuel Clemens may have had Darwinism in mind regarding "conjecture".

 

[Sparkey]

No - it is a fact--mythology is not science.


Samuel Clemens may have had Darwinism in mind regarding "conjecture".

Well, there we have it! Facts are now evident by mere assertion. Your definition of "Darwinian Myth" is that it (whatever it is) is indeed myth. Okay, can we retire this and go on to more serious discussion? The question that I actually asked is, "Is there any way to resolve the two points of view," and your defense to my suggestion that we set aside inflammatory language does not answer it.

 

[zeke]

Well, there we have it! Facts are now evident by mere assertion.

Again, the statement that mythology is not science is more than an assertion - it is a statement of fact.

 

[Sparkey]

Re-interpret your statement after-the-fact as much as you want, change it around and try to make it look like I am saying something that I am not, but it doesn't change your unsupported allegation that all science based on Darwin's work is myth.

You've accused others of doing the same thing that you refuse to quit. I'm done here.

 

[lordkalvan]

You continue to dance my friend - why? Your continued failure to present even your one-best evidence that proves man and chimp have a common ancestor is strong evidence that you have no evidence. Folks – this is typical of the Darwinian “defense” when presenting mythology as science. Darwinism did not predict these patterns that my friend relies on for his ‘proof’.

Linnaeus saw such patterns as a reflection of the Creator’s divine plan. Hierarchical patterns, homologies, etc. do not force one to embrace the naturalism-Darwinism that excludes a Creator-God. My friend recognizes this fact – thus he fails to do that which he boasted he could do. Genetic similarities can support an intelligent designer who designed similar body plans as easily as it can support the creation myth of universal common ancestry.

Thanks in advance kalvan if you decide to do what can’t be done. It will be entertaining. Who knows – maybe the random luck required to transform dinos into birds will smile on you. Please try to avoid the worn-out pseudoscience and bedtime stories associated with Darwinism. I will check back from time to time to see how your luck is holding out.

And every time you check back I will point to your persistent avoidance when it comes to answering relevant questions, my friend.

ETA You may want to reflect more thoughtfully than you appear to have done on Sparrowhawke's wise and unbiased counsels.

 

[zeke]

Re-interpret your statement after-the-fact as much as you want, change it around and try to make it look like I am saying something that I am not, but it doesn't change your unsupported allegation that all science based on Darwin's work is myth.

Well, what are you trying to say? And I never stated "all science based on Darwin's work is myth" - it is not. Isn't it you who is changing it around in an effort to make it look like I am saying something that I am not? I have stated repeatedly that biological evolution is science. Can you clarify your accusation?