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

[lordkalvan]

Is that your latest and final admission that you have no "real evidence" based on a scientific method to support your notion. Very Good. Is that about it?

Provide the explanations concerning the evidence that is unacceptable to you (pseudoscience, Darwinian mythology, bedtime stories and fallacious rhetoric) and I will be happy to discuss evidence that is acceptable to you. This seems quite understandable to me, so I am afraid I can't really see what your problem is. You seem to prefer taunting and condescension to reasoned discussion.

 

[zeke]

Provide the explanations concerning the evidence that is unacceptable to you (pseudoscience, Darwinian mythology, bedtime stories and fallacious rhetoric) and I will be happy to discuss evidence that is acceptable to you. This seems quite understandable to me, so I am afraid I can't really see what your problem is. You seem to prefer taunting and condescension to reasoned discussion.

What part of "real evidence" based on a scientific method do you not grasp? Is that question 'taunting and condescending' or are you just projecting once again?

 

[Sparkey]

As noted - I understand you quite well. Are the questions too hard for you or do you simply not want to go there for the obvious reasons? Call or fold...

I have replied:




My intrepretation of your rhetoric -- You state (in question form) that:

• The clip excludes common design out of hand.
• Evolutionary scientists (most of whom are atheist/agnostic) [don't] ever consider “common design”.
• Evolutionists whose worldview is “evolutionism” routinely “incorporate a large amount of bias in their analyses in order to manipulate the data to support evolution “.
• The similarities in DNA sequences noted in the propaganda clip support common design as well as it does common ancestry.
• It possible that God could have used successful DNA sequences over and over again in all “created kinds”.

Did you even read my disclaimer or note that my interest centered on the knowledge that science is gaining in this field?
It's not all about the age-old argument anymore. Time to retire the old grindstone, it's worn and getting thin.

 

[zeke]

I have replied:




My intrepretation of your rhetoric -- You state (in question form) that:

• The clip excludes common design out of hand.
• Evolutionary scientists (most of whom are atheist/agnostic) [don't] ever consider “common design”.
• Evolutionists whose worldview is “evolutionism” routinely “incorporate a large amount of bias in their analyses in order to manipulate the data to support evolution “.
• The similarities in DNA sequences noted in the propaganda clip support common design as well as it does common ancestry.
• It possible that God could have used successful DNA sequences over and over again in all “created kinds”.

Did you even read my disclaimer or note that my interest centered on the knowledge that science is gaining in this field?
It's not all about the age-old argument anymore. Time to retire the old grindstone, it's worn and getting thin.

I read your disclaimer but it appeared to be little more than your reluctance to answer the questions. If you would rather not answer them we will understand. But the question remains - my questions were related to your chimp clip. Not sure why you would introduce a clip and then fail to discuss/defend it. Oh well...

 

[lordkalvan]

What part of "real evidence" based on a scientific method do you not grasp? Is that question 'taunting and condescending' or are you just projecting once again?

I grasp that you are incapable of answering questions seeking to clarify your understanding when you use particularly loaded terms - such as fallacious rhetoric, bedtime stories, Darwinian mythology and pseudoscience - that you avoid defining or explaining no matter how many times asked. Just how far do you imagine you are fooling people with these immature tactics? It may have impinged upon your awareness that others rather than just me have noted and commented on this.

 

[zeke]

I'm going to be repetitive again...

Yes - you sure are - again and again and again. You appear to have been reduced to repetition because you cannot provide evidence based on a scientific method to prove your non-scientific notion but you are entertaining.

Please take this advice constructively as intended...

“The first rule of holes: When you're in one stop digging.” ​

 

[lordkalvan]

Yes - you sure are - again and again and again. You appear to have been reduced to repetition because you cannot provide evidence based on a scientific method to prove your non-scientific notion but you are entertaining.

Please take this advice constructively as intended...

“The first rule of holes: When you're in one stop digging.” ​

Actually, I'm standing on the edge just watching you shovel opinion and assertion and trying to pass it off as reasoned argument. How are you getting on with working on your explanation for us about how homologies and the nested hierarchy support common design as well as common ancestry, by the way? I mean, if you're going to cast stones, you should be aware of your own glass-house...

ETA Oh, and can you enlighten us your understanding of the evolutionary relatedness (or not) of 250+ monkey species and your explanation for your interpretation of the relevant evidence?

 

[Sparkey]

I read your disclaimer but it appeared [to me] to be little more than your reluctance to answer the questions. If you would rather not answer them we will understand. But the question remains - my questions were related to your chimp clip. Not sure why you would introduce a clip and then fail to discuss/defend it. Oh well...

I've already stated that I do not believe or endorse the conclusions (that all life shares a common ancestor), so instead of avoiding questions, I've answered them before they were asked.

zeke rhetorical Q #1: Does your referenced Darwinian clip “assume†naturalism via Darwinian evolution?
A: I'm not certain but it does seem to, especially in the beginning.

zeke rhetorical Q #2: Does your clip exclude common design out of hand?
A: Perhaps, it didn't mention it.

zeke rhetorical Q #3: Do evolutionary scientists (most of whom are atheist/agnostic) ever consider “common design�
A: I can't speak for them. What did you see? Give the filemark number so I can find your reference in the video and we can revisit this.

zeke rhetorical Q #4: Do evolutionists whose worldview is “evolutionism†routinely “incorporate a large amount of bias in their analyses in order to manipulate the data to support evolution “?
A: I can't speak for them. What did you see? Give the filemark number so I can find your reference in the video and we can revisit this. Your guess is as good as mine, I imagine.

zeke rhetorical Q #5: Can the similarities in DNA sequences noted in the propaganda clip support common design as well as it does common ancestry?
A: I don't see the question that way, there is no competition in knowledge, it just is. The beliefs that many form from their knowledge of the facts may be questionable but the fact that genes from a mouse can be used in a "eyeless fly" egg to produce compound eyes is remarkable, isn't it?

zeke rhetorical Q #6: Is it possible that God could have used successful DNA sequences over and over again in all “created kinds�
A: It's possible, but I don't think that is the case. I've read a description of the process, albeit poetic in nature, that He "knits us together while we are yet in the womb." I really don't think that God stands that far from the Creation He knows and loves. Check my signature quote, please.

zeke rhetorical Q #7: After watching your clip did you come to the conclusion that naturalistic Darwinism is how life ‘evolved’ on this planet?
A: I've not concluded my thinking on the subject and am not sure how you define "naturalistic Darwinism". Is this the same or different from "Mythological Darwinism"? Simple answer: "No."

I'm not sure why you would want to focus attention on one aspect of the video presentation and refuse to acknowledge my point. You've asked repeatedly for any "Science" that follows the scientific method to be brought to this discussion.

We've seen an embryo's cells partition themselves into segments and develop into the final form of the organism. The question that the video raises is, "How does the embryo know what shape to take?" According to the video, Dr. Ed Lewis of Cal-Tech" studied this question for 30 years." It is his method of study that I brought to this forum for discussion in order to provide you, zeke, with an example of the scientific method and specifically ask if this was a proper example and if it would be found by you as acceptable.

So, does the research of Dr. Lewis meet your criteria for "science"? Or does it better fit your pseudoscience, bedtime story, or Darwinian Myth bucket?

 

[zeke]

So, does the research of Dr. Lewis meet your criteria for "science"? Or does it better fit your pseudoscience, bedtime story, or Darwinian Myth bucket?

Lol - are you yelling? I saw nothing in Dr. Lewis’ work that would even vaguely prove dino-bird evolution or man-monkey common ancestry including Lewis’ work on 'how an embryo knows what shape to take'. If God is the “ultimate bio-systems programmer” then He would have programed embryos to 'take the shape’ they do.

Did you see something in your video that supports universal common descent? Do you believe man and monkey have a common ancestor?

 

[Sparkey]

Nope, not "yelling" -- I didn't use all caps, but only used emphasis, small font for your rhetorical questions and my answers and then large font to emphasize my point and give it dramatic effect.

You've got too many threads in your juggling act to be able to follow easily but we've never discussed "dino-bird" evolution except for one question where you asked if I believed it. My answer (in case you've forgotten) was, "No."

We've also never discussed "monkey-man" evolution directly, but I have stated on multiple occasions that I believe that God made man (as stated in the bible) separate and through a distinct act from dust and the impartation of the breath of life through Adam's nostril. I have also listened carefully enough to the reply of strict evolutionists who state it as, "Man and Apes have a common ancestor." I guess there is a distinction that can be made between apes, men and monkeys - one group lacks a tail. Which brings me to another question that you've dodged - what about morphology, In biology, morphology is a branch of bioscience dealing with the study of the form and structure of organisms and their specific structural features. That's where I'm going with this - but first things first.

My question was an attempt to pin you down, as others have, before we actually engage in discussion. Does the research provided in the video of Dr. Lewis fit your criteria for acceptable science or would you summarily dismiss such research as "pseudoscience," "bedtime stories," or "Darwinian Myth"?? I'm starting to understand that you don't want to make a general admission, "Yeah, that's the kind of rigorous research that I will accept and we are agreed. --or-- NO! I can't allow that type of research. That's nothing close to the science that I find appealing.

 

[zeke]

Does the research provided in the video of Dr. Lewis fit your criteria for acceptable science or would you summarily dismiss such research as "pseudoscience," "bedtime stories," or "Darwinian Myth"??

You misunderstand - it's not the research technique - it is the interpretation of the data that results for the research. We all see the same data but not all of us are so gullible as to believe the Darwinian spin/bias used to manipulate the data to support evolutionism. Did you think Lewis presented a case for man-monkey common ancestry?

 

[Sparkey]

You misunderstand - it's not the research technique - it is the interpretation of the data that results for the research. We all see the same data but not all of us are so gullible as to believe the Darwinian spin/bias used to manipulate the data to support evolutionism. Did you think Lewis presented a case for man-monkey common ancestry?

Well, maybe I do misunderstand. I could be guilty of that. In my defense, there has been a lot of rhetoric flying around. I don't think that I fit into any category, but I do try to be as flexible as possible and keep it as simple as possible while I continue my personal lifelong learning project.

In fact, I hope that I will live long enough to see this issue resolved. It won't be resolved without mutual understanding. Period. You've asked, "Did you think Lewis presented a case for man-monkey common ancestry?" My thought is that he presented evidence that could be used to support that view. My thought, and I'm glad you asked, is that "common ancestry" will need to be rethought by scientists as they continue their own personal lifelong learning projects. I'll use a phrase we've all heard the proponents of evolution invoke: It takes time.

 

[zeke]

I don't think that I fit into any category, but I do try to be as flexible as possible and keep it as simple as possible while I continue my personal lifelong learning project.

Fair enough - no argument there.

In fact, I hope that I will live long enough to see this issue resolved. It won't be resolved without mutual understanding.

There are two choices - (1) special creation via a loving Creator-God or (2) cold blind chance via the randomness of naturalism that did not have man in mind. We all must choose...there is no compromise.

 

[Sparkey]

Fair enough - no argument there.


There are two choices - (1) special creation via a loving Creator-God or (2) cold blind chance via the randomness of naturalism that did not have man in mind. We all must choose...there is no compromise.

Or (3) Maybe we're not as smart as we think we are. I remember somewhere reading that God loves (delights?) in showing those who are wise in their own sight to be foolish. Have you considered the two-edged nature of that sword?

 

[pHghost]

randomness of naturalism

Randomness? You don't even seem to understand the concepts of what you are trying to oppose. That is a dangerous path.

 

[zeke]

Randomness? You don't even seem to understand the concepts of what you are trying to oppose. That is a dangerous path.

What do you think you are trying to say - take your time?

 

[zeke]

Or (3) Maybe we're not as smart as we think we are. I remember somewhere reading that God loves (delights?) in showing those who are wise in their own sight to be foolish. Have you considered the two-edged nature of that sword?

No my friend - there is no 3rd choice between theism and atheism.

 

[Sparkey]

No my friend - there is no 3rd choice between theism and atheism.

What, did not your Father also create the nations? When He planned on opening the church to Gentiles, did the Pharisees know? Or was it revealed to Paul and was His plan concealed from prior ages? Are we not clearly instructed to love our enemies and told that even the heathen love those who love them? What about instructions that His children are to remember when they were strangers in Egypt - and to therefor treat all strangers in our gates like we would want to be treated? Did not Job (called by God a righteous man) defend his very righteousness by asking others to look at how he treated "orphans" as his own sons? If Job is righteous, shall not our Heavenly Father be more so?

These, my friend are not rhetorical questions but rather ones that deserve a lifetime of thought.

 

[zeke]

What, did not your Father also create the nations? When He planned on opening the church to Gentiles, did the Pharisees know? Or was it revealed to Paul and was His plan concealed from prior ages? Are we not clearly instructed to love our enemies and told that even the heathen love those who love them? What about instructions that His children are to remember when they were strangers in Egypt - and to therefor treat all strangers in our gates like we would want to be treated? Did not Job (called by God a righteous man) defend his very righteousness by asking others to look at how he treated "orphans" as his own sons? If Job is righteous, shall not our Heavenly Father be more so?

These, my friend are not rhetorical questions but rather ones that deserve a lifetime of thought.

And what - pray-tell - does all of your commentary above have to do with the point that there is no 3rd choice between theism and atheism? What is your point - for the record?

 

[pHghost]

What do you think you are trying to say - take your time?

I am saying that your view of the matter is based on wild assumptions, not on trying to understand the matter before rejecting it.