[_ Old Earth _] Evolution is hostile to reason.

[Dave...]

Would everyone here agree that it would be a misconception to believe that naturalism embodies the very essence of scientific objectivity, and that the entire religion, or philosophy of naturalism is built on a faith based premise?

Be honest.

Dave

 

[Dave...]

Chrickets........I'll take that as a yes. :

 

[Asimov]

Would everyone here agree that it would be a misconception to believe that naturalism embodies the very essence of scientific objectivity, and that the entire religion, or philosophy of naturalism is built on a faith based premise?

Be honest.

Dave

I don't understand the question.

Naturalism is a philosophy, yes. It embraces science to explain the natural world, yes. How is that faith based?

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Another iteration of the semantics mistake so often made on this board:
Faith is a type of belief that is unverifiable, it is belief for its own sake and cannot be corrolated with reality.
Naturalism embraces science because it is rejecting science is unreasonably skeptical and there are no other sets of answers to questions about the universe that stand up to reasonable skepticism.

 

[Barbarian]

Keeping in mind that science is methodologically naturalistic. It can't verify or deny anything beyond nature, because it is unable to test anything but nature.

 

[Heidi]

Another iteration of the semantics mistake so often made on this board:
Faith is a type of belief that is unverifiable, it is belief for its own sake and cannot be corrolated with reality.
Naturalism embraces science because it is rejecting science is unreasonably skeptical and there are no other sets of answers to questions about the universe that stand up to reasonable skepticism.

And how is evolution verifiable? Why are apes only breeding apes today and humans only breeding humans, some of whom have defects?Today's reality is backed up by the bible that animals only produce offspring of their own kind. What reality today backs up evolution? :o

 

[ThinkerMan]

Another iteration of the semantics mistake so often made on this board:
Faith is a type of belief that is unverifiable, it is belief for its own sake and cannot be corrolated with reality.
Naturalism embraces science because it is rejecting science is unreasonably skeptical and there are no other sets of answers to questions about the universe that stand up to reasonable skepticism.

And how is evolution verifiable? Why are apes only breeding apes today and humans only breeding humans, some of whom have defects?Today's reality is backed up by the bible that animals only produce offspring of their own kind. What reality today backs up evolution? :o

(My bolding). Heidi....you have precisely undermined your own post.

You call them defects, but they are actually referred to as mutations...some "bad", some "good" and most neutral.

Those defects, over time, change the organism. When you and I both agree that a Chihuahua and a Great Dane both evolved from generally the same "dog" over the last few thousand years, you accept the general premise of evolution.

Today, I could easily say that I have never seen a two Chihuahuas give birth to a Great Dane, nor have I seen two wolves give birth to a toy poodle. However, you understand I am ignoring the time factor and the small changes that build up under what you may call "microevolution."

I drop the "micro" and just call it evolution. You see, we don't disagree all that much.

Why are apes only breeding apes today and humans only breeding humans,

Why can donkeys and horses breed to create non-donkeys and non-horses (mules)? Your "only" premise fails there.

However, this again is the oft-repeated strawman creationists use to debase evolution. This is a claim that evolution does not make, and if you choose to engage in this debate, you should at least properly articulate the correct theory.

 

[Dave...]

Would everyone here agree that it would be a misconception to believe that naturalism embodies the very essence of scientific objectivity, and that the entire religion, or philosophy of naturalism is built on a faith based premise?

I think the question stands and is reasonable. This basically means that there are no hard facts to back up the theory of evolution. In other words, it is a "faith based premice" based on philosophy.

I don't understand the question.

Naturalism is a philosophy, yes. It embraces science to explain the natural world, yes. How is that faith based?

Can you elaborate on "embraces"?

Faith is a type of belief that is unverifiable, it is belief for its own sake and cannot be corrolated with reality.

And this is a perfect description of evolution.

Naturalism embraces science because it is rejecting science is unreasonably skeptical and there are no other sets of answers to questions about the universe that stand up to reasonable skepticism

There is that word "embrace" again. Can you elaborate. Also, your reasoning is unsound here.

 

[Dave...]

Those defects, over time, change the organism. When you and I both agree that a Chihuahua and a Great Dane both evolved from generally the same "dog" over the last few thousand years, you accept the general premise of evolution.

Today, I could easily say that I have never seen a two Chihuahuas give birth to a Great Dane, nor have I seen two wolves give birth to a toy poodle. However, you understand I am ignoring the time factor and the small changes that build up under what you may call "microevolution."

I drop the "micro" and just call it evolution. You see, we don't disagree all that much.

Microevolution- this is when organisms adapt to the changing conditions of the environment. It improves existing genes. It does not create new genes. An example that illustrates this is the classic peppered moth argument. Basically, when the trees are white, there are more white moths, conversely when the trees were turned black by pollution at the turn of the century, more black moths survived simply from being harder to see, not changing into a different moth. The moths are still moths, not a new creature.

Macroevolution-the changes within species that results in a new and separate species. An example of this would be a fish evolving into a bird. This has never been proven or observed in nature.

http://www.geocities.com/reasonstobelie ... facts.html

 

[Heidi]

Another iteration of the semantics mistake so often made on this board:
Faith is a type of belief that is unverifiable, it is belief for its own sake and cannot be corrolated with reality.
Naturalism embraces science because it is rejecting science is unreasonably skeptical and there are no other sets of answers to questions about the universe that stand up to reasonable skepticism.

And how is evolution verifiable? Why are apes only breeding apes today and humans only breeding humans, some of whom have defects?Today's reality is backed up by the bible that animals only produce offspring of their own kind. What reality today backs up evolution? :o

(My bolding). Heidi....you have precisely undermined your own post.

You call them defects, but they are actually referred to as mutations...some "bad", some "good" and most neutral.

Those defects, over time, change the organism. When you and I both agree that a Chihuahua and a Great Dane both evolved from generally the same "dog" over the last few thousand years, you accept the general premise of evolution.

Today, I could easily say that I have never seen a two Chihuahuas give birth to a Great Dane, nor have I seen two wolves give birth to a toy poodle. However, you understand I am ignoring the time factor and the small changes that build up under what you may call "microevolution."

I drop the "micro" and just call it evolution. You see, we don't disagree all that much.

Why are apes only breeding apes today and humans only breeding humans,

Why can donkeys and horses breed to create non-donkeys and non-horses (mules)? Your "only" premise fails there.

However, this again is the oft-repeated strawman creationists use to debase evolution. This is a claim that evolution does not make, and if you choose to engage in this debate, you should at least properly articulate the correct theory.

Hello? Where is there any evidence that all the breeds of dogs came from 2 dogs?

If the human being comes from an ape, then why don't apes & humans mate today and produce offspring? :o

You ignore the fact that no cell can spontaneoulsy produce superior characteristics by itself. The combination of egg & sperm can only produce the characteristics included in the egg & sperm and nothing more. But if either the egg or sperm or both are damged, then they will produce damaged offspring, not superior offspring. And this is where the theory of evolution is seriously flawed, other than the obvious fact that apes have only bred apes & humans have only bred humans during recorded history, which is lost on men who consider themselves intelligent, but easily understood by children.

 

[ThinkerMan]

Hello? Where is there any evidence that all the breeds of dogs came from 2 dogs?

It is the prevailing theory of both creationists and evolutionists that the varied breeds of all dogs evolved from wolves.

I was drawing an analogy to your "humans only make humans" argument. Wolves don't only make wolves. Over time, they can make poodles, Chihuahuas and Great Danes. Ask an creationist scientist....they will agree that wolves don't only make wolves over time.

If the human being comes from an ape, then why don't apes & humans mate today and produce offspring?

Because the are seperate species. The genetic differences between the two are too vast to produce viable offspring.

Similar to horses and donkeys, only they are much closer together genetically, so they can mate and produce offspring, only they are infertile.

You ignore the fact that no cell can spontaneoulsy produce superior characteristics by itself. The combination of egg & sperm can only produce the characteristics included in the egg & sperm and nothing more. But if either the egg or sperm or both are damged, then they will produce damaged offspring, not superior offspring. And this is where the theory of evolution is seriously flawed, other than the obvious fact that apes have only bred apes & humans have only bred humans during recorded history, which is lost on men who consider themselves intelligent, but easily understood by children.

Sorry Heidi, but your lack of basic understanding of biology, the actual theory of evolution and genetics is enough to make a young-earth creationist scientist cringe.

If you wish to engage on the specifics of evolution, fine. But making broad objections to strawman claims of evolution is no way to go.

 

[Heidi]

Sorry, but human reason is by definition, fallible. Therefore your arguments are fallible. But the Holy Spirit is infallible which is why the authors of the bible knew the earth was round thousands of years before people who relied on human reasoning did.

Again, the theory that dogs evolved from wolves or that wolves evolved from dogs comes from the imagination and only the imagination. Dogs have never prodcued wolves in recorded history nor have wolves ever produced dogs. That's why evolutionists say all this happened before there were witnesses. I can say anything I want happened before recorded history! All I have to do is complete the coursework required for an advanced degree in science and people will believe anything I say! It's very easy to dupe people who look to fallible human beings for the truth. Very easy.

 

[Barbarian]

Sorry, but human reason is by definition, fallible. Therefore your arguments are fallible. But the Holy Spirit is infallible which is why the authors of the bible knew the earth was round thousands of years before people who relied on human reasoning did.

Actually, they didn't. The ancient Greeks had that figured out nearly a thousand years BC. They had actually measured how large it is to a very accurate degree by about 350 BC.

The Bible, BTW, mentions an earlier idea that the Earth is circular, not spherical, but educated Hebrews by Jesus's time knew it was spherical. It's a myth that people told Columbus that he would fall off the edge of the Earth. His critics told him he had underestimated how far around it is. He had.

Again, the theory that dogs evolved from wolves or that wolves evolved from dogs comes from the imagination and only the imagination.

In fact, most creationists admit that all canids evolved from a common "dog kind."

Would you like to learn about it?

 

[Heidi]

Ah, sorry, but any creationist believes we were created by God the way the bible says we were, "each to his own kind" or he is not a creationist. There is a reason that dogs cannot produce birds or apes cannot produce human beings. It is also why apes produce nothing but apes today, dogs, produce nothing but dogs, wolves, wolves, birds, birds. But men won't leave that alone because they think they know better than God. So they say; "Hey, maybe men came from primates! yeah, I can invent this new theory & I'll be famous!" So they construct an elaborate scenario based on "what if's" with no evidence in reality, only speculation. This is also what sci-fi writers do. They invent their own jargon like "macro" or "micro" evolution just like sci-fi writers do, when this is all nothing but theory.

All man has to do is watch the reproductive process over the thousands of years that man has been on earth and see how species breed their own kind. That's called reality, not the imagination. It's really quite simple.

There was an article in the newspaper last year about scientists who found bones in the Gobi desert they said dated back millions of years ago. Then when an old man read about their findings, he walked into the police station and told them he thought they were the bones of his uncle who had wandered into the desert years earlier. So they did DNA testing and sure enough, they were the bones of his uncle.

Archeologists can make their findings into anything they want them to be and dupe the public beauce the have letters after their names. But it's usually only years later that their "discoveries" are found to have serious flaws. ;-)

 

[reznwerks]

primates

Ah, sorry, but any creationist believes we were created by God the way the bible says we were, "each to his own kind" or he is not a creationist. There is a reason that dogs cannot produce birds or apes cannot produce human beings. It is also why apes produce nothing but apes today, dogs, produce nothing but dogs, wolves, wolves, birds, birds.
The reason they produce their own kind is that this is the way it is. Mammals are very similar in how their systems work and reptiles don't work like mammals. To say that God made each according to their own kind by observing that dogs don't produce birds etc is simplistic observation that any child can come up with.

But men won't leave that alone because they think they know better than God. So they say; "Hey, maybe men came from primates! yeah, I can invent this new theory & I'll be famous!"
Sorry to tell you this but man did not come from primates he is a primate. He is a species unto himself.


So they construct an elaborate scenario based on "what if's" with no evidence in reality, only speculation. This is also what sci-fi writers do. They invent their own jargon like "macro" or "micro" evolution just like sci-fi writers do, when this is all nothing but theory.
Sorry but their is a whole lot of evidence including not only what we see but also in the genetic make up of DNA etc. You can put your head in the sand all you want but that won't change what is there.

All man has to do is watch the reproductive process over the thousands of years that man has been on earth and see how species breed their own kind. That's called reality, not the imagination. It's really quite simple.
What is simple is that man can as you say watch over the thoudands of years the fossil evidence and how it has changed the species. The horse is an excellent study of how evolution has changed this animal hoofs.

There was an article in the newspaper last year about scientists who found bones in the Gobi desert they said dated back millions of years ago. Then when an old man read about their findings, he walked into the police station and told them he thought they were the bones of his uncle who had wandered into the desert years earlier. So they did DNA testing and sure enough, they were the bones of his uncle.
Isn't science wonderful? In the end if its not true science will admit it and find the truth.

Archeologists can make their findings into anything they want them to be and dupe the public beauce the have letters after their names. But it's usually only years later that their "discoveries" are found to have serious flaws. ;-)

Sorry but archeologists cannot make their finding into anything they want because sooner or later if the findings are not true they will be found out.Those that look for answers and evidence are a competitive lot and they are always looking for fame and glory by pointing out errors and mistakes which is good because it forces them to find the truth. Unlike theists who have the answers and are forever looking for the evidence. However the best they can do is twist, slant and outright deny what is there and blame satan etc for the what the evidence testifies too. Theists have a vested interest in denying evolution because once it is accepted the whole house of cards comes crashing down as far as beleifs are concerned.

 

[Heidi]

Exactly, Man is a species unto himself. Man has been the same since the beginning of recorded history. The notion that before there were any witnesses, he looked like a primate or an ape is simply from the imagination and nothing else.

It is a very simplistic and obvious observation that animals reproduce their own kind...that is, to all but evolutionists. Since it isn't obvious to them, they say that man came from an ape-like being that conveniently died out. It's called the "missing link", and there's a reason why it's still missing.

The genetic make-up of which animal? Apes again are still found in jungles or zoos where man put them and men are found in society. The differences in genetic make-up between the 2 is obvious to anyone with eyes.

There are as many different combinations of horse genes as there are differences between human genes. Some people have blue eyes, some brown. Some are taller, some are shorter. But a horse has never changed into a dog or a man and neither has a man ever changed into another animal. So what is your point? :o

And how will science find the truth through a fallible mind? :o That by definition, is an oxymoron because the truth is infallible, my friend. And that's why scientists change their minds every generation because what they once thought was not true is no longer true. So which science do you believe? Today's science, or tomorrow's science that corrects today's science? Then when tomorrow comes, which science will you believe then? Tomorrow's science or the science that corrects tomorrow's science? Sorry, but putting your faith in sience is putting your faith in shifting sand. But the bible is as true today as when it was written.

And when have Christ's words come crashing down? Which words of his have ever been proven a lie? :-?

 

[ThinkerMan]

Exactly, Man is a species unto himself. Man has been the same since the beginning of recorded history.

According to your beliefs, not so.

Adam and Eve could not have been black AND white, had asian AND round eyes, had curly AND straight hair, had blond AND blue eyes.

Since the Tower of Babel, as you believe, all this different races evolved, correct? So you can't say Man was always the same.

And that supposedly happened only 5,000 years ago. If you believe all that could happen that fast, why don't you believe more could happen in a few million?

 

[Heidi]

Exactly, Man is a species unto himself. Man has been the same since the beginning of recorded history.

According to your beliefs, not so.

Adam and Eve could not have been black AND white, had asian AND round eyes, had curly AND straight hair, had blond AND blue eyes.

Since the Tower of Babel, as you believe, all this different races evolved, correct? So you can't say Man was always the same.

And that supposedly happened only 5,000 years ago. If you believe all that could happen that fast, why don't you believe more could happen in a few million?

Adam & Eve were still human beings, unless you don't think Blacks or Asians are human beings. :o

Again, are you saying people with different skin or hair color aren't human beings? If so, then there's no point in debating anything with you.

Because there's no evidence in recorded history that men were ever anything other than human beings. Some of the greatest thinkers of all time lived thousands of years ago. So why would you think they were any less fit then? Why would you also think they were inferior or resembeled an ape in any way? :-?

 

[reznwerks]

wrong

Exactly, Man is a species unto himself. Man has been the same since the beginning of recorded history.
So close yet you missed the mark. Man has evolved from as ape like creature as a separate species.

The notion that before there were any witnesses, he looked like a primate or an ape is simply from the imagination and nothing else.
Sorry but the evidence uncovered points to a different explanation.

It is a very simplistic and obvious observation that animals reproduce their own kind...that is, to all but evolutionists. Since it isn't obvious to them, they say that man came from an ape-like being that conveniently died out. It's called the "missing link", and there's a reason why it's still missing.
Animals do reproduce after their own kind . However over time they change. Only those that refuse to accept the evidence of evolution deny the reality. All you have to do is look at different strains of influenza and how they change every year to confirm that evolution takes place.

The genetic make-up of which animal? Apes again are still found in jungles or zoos where man put them and men are found in society. The differences in genetic make-up between the 2 is obvious to anyone with eyes.
Of course there are apes still found. However this ape (man] has reached a higher plateau than the others. There are apes, gorillas, monkeys, orangatangs and man. THey all belong to the same family and share many traits physically and biologically and genetically.You may not like that but that is the way it is.

There are as many different combinations of horse genes as there are differences between human genes. Some people have blue eyes, some brown. Some are taller, some are shorter. But a horse has never changed into a dog or a man and neither has a man ever changed into another animal. So what is your point? :o
No one ever said that another animal changed into another. WHat you fail to understand is that man is man. He evolved as a species unto himself as he is today.

And how will science find the truth through a fallible mind? :o That by definition, is an oxymoron because the truth is infallible, my friend.
If the truth were infallable why isn't it so obvious. How was it that before evolution just about every Christian accepted the biblical storiess as true. What was it that changed that ? Could it be the evidence and logic of what could be see rather than accepting the stories of unknown authors with fantastic claims missing evidence?

And that's why scientists change their minds every generation because what they once thought was not true is no longer true.
For the most part scientists do not change their minds every generation and where ever you heard this was not accurate. They may build upon what was known and tweak some process or understanding but for the most part your statement is patently wrong.

So which science do you believe? Today's science, or tomorrow's science that corrects today's science?
Its a bogus claim and all you have to do is take a science book from 20 years ago and compare it to today and you will see that if anything the majority of what is taught is built on the knowledge of yesterday.

Then when tomorrow comes, which science will you believe then? Tomorrow's science or the science that corrects tomorrow's science? Sorry, but putting your faith in sience is putting your faith in shifting sand. But the bible is as true today as when it was written.
Sorry but believing without evidence is called gullible where I come from.

And when have Christ's words come crashing down? Which words of his have ever been proven a lie? :-?
UH? When he said some standing here would not taste death before he returns.

 

[ThinkerMan]

Heidi, you crack me up.

Adam & Eve were still human beings, unless you don't think Blacks or Asians are human beings.

Are implying that I am white? Why do you make that assumption?

Again, are you saying people with different skin or hair color aren't human beings? If so, then there's no point in debating anything with you.

White is as different from black as black is different from white. I was not asserting any quality of humanity to blue eyes versus brown, or dark skin versus light. I was simply stating that there are some rather obvious physical differences among different races.

What I WAS saying, is that from Adam, who was either black, white or brown, all the different races and colors and hair types evolved (or adapted) to the differences we see in people today.

Isn't that what you believe? After the people were dispersed from the Tower of Bable, you believe that they adapted differences such as dark skin or asian eyes. Right?

My point being is that if you believe that in 5,000 short years those physical differences can emerge in human beings, why can't you believe that its possible that even more substantial differences can emerge to the point at which those people would different species over millions of years.

Because there's no evidence in recorded history that men were ever anything other than human beings.

Do you want a note from Lucy in 2 million BCE that says:

"Today I tried to make a baby with a hominid from across the river, but it didn't take. Looks like we are a new species now."

Unfortunately, Lucy nor none of her ancestors and very few of her decendents could write. So as it turns out, we have to use reason, science and the fossil record to piece it together.

Some of the greatest thinkers of all time lived thousands of years ago. So why would you think they were any less fit then?

I agree...Aristotle, Confucius, Pythagorus. Dirty pagans.

Certainly they were just as fit. If you could go back even 25,000 years and snatch a baby and raise it today, it likely would have all the potential to be a great scientist. 25,000 years is a blink in time and those humans are pretty much the same as us.

Why would you also think they were inferior or resembeled an ape in any way?

What's with all this inferiority talk?

Gorillas aren't inferior to us. If I had to live like a gorilla, I wouldn't have a chance. They only herbivores, and rely on their quick senses and brute strenght to protect themselves. If I had to live in their habitate, I would die in a few days. Chimps aren't inferior either. They are much superior to us in living in their environment.

If I tried to live as an oak tree, I'd have a tough time making energy just standing in a field. However an actual oak tree is rather superior to me in that respect.

The best any species can do is be superior in its particular environment. Those who are live and breed, those who aren't die. Superiority as some sort of absolute is ridiculous.