[_ Old Earth _] Evolution stopped after billions of years.

[Barbarian]

Then you admit you have no evidence from science that the similarities between man and a dead-end ape species proves universal common ancestry

Genetics, homologous organs, verified predictions of evolutionary theory, such as human/ape intermediates (and a complete lack of such intermediates where the theory says they shouldn't be). Stuff like that. A million tiny facts that form a mountain of evidence.

The onus is yours and Barbarian's to prove man-chimp common ancestry. Thus far you have both failed.

Failing to get you to admit the fact is of no consequence. In fact, you're doing a great service to science by writing as you do here. Mindless denial is hard to demonstrate, absent a live example.

 

[Barbarian]

So your evidence for evolution goes beyond the proof that can be offered in a paternity suit against you? How?

Anatomical data, showing the homologies of human and ape structure. The formation of a fused chromosome in humans, made up of two ape chromosomes. The numerous intermediates between humans and conventional apes, but no intermediates where the theory says they shouldn't be.

A lot of support for the genetic evidence, the methodology of which can be tested on organisms of known descent.

 

[zeke]

Anatomical data, showing the homologies of human and ape structure. The formation of a fused chromosome in humans, made up of two ape chromosomes. The numerous intermediates between humans and conventional apes, but no intermediates where the theory says they shouldn't be.

A lot of support for the genetic evidence, the methodology of which can be tested on organisms of known descent.

But you keep forgetting that similarity is evidence for common design and you have yet to present any real 'transitionals' that prove man-chimp common ancestry. Remember, extinct apes are just that - extinct apes.

 

[Sparkey]

We seem to be descending into a semantic quagmire.

Much of this discussion involves clarification of terms and is in both our interests to try to sort it all out.

For instance, there are two major types of research in science. One involves rigorous testing of theories and another involves justification of the theories. Sometimes there is overlap because the two methods share similarities but for purpose of explanation we could consider research that has been done in terms of "proving" microevolution (the minute changes that occur within a species) and contrast that with the limitations that are in place while researching data to support change beyond what you understand me to mean as "beyond biblical kind".

Now I know that some evolutionists don’t like to distinguish between micro and macroevolutionary processes, and that’s fine; the distinction may not be important in their everyday work. However, the distinction is important when exploring the question “Is evolution a fact?” It turns out that one type of evolution has been subjected to rigorous testing and passed while the other has not.

Microevolutionary processes within a species is a demonstrable fact. It has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt with rigorous testing. Specifically, random genomic mutations and environmental selection have been shown to create change within a species.

Sherlock Holmes used induction when he collected observable facts and used those facts to reconstruct what happened at a crime scene. (It is interesting to note that Holmes said he was using ‘deduction’ - actually he was using ‘induction’.) In philosophical terms induction is going from particulars and specifics to a single explanation (or generalization), and that is what Holmes did; he went from particular evidence to a single conclusion about who committed the crime.

In the same way, evolutionists collect facts in the natural world and use them to explain or describe the theory of a single common ancestor. This too involves moving from particular field evidence to a single conclusion (sometimes called macroevolution). Although the evidence may appear to support a conclusion, we cannot be certain that either conclusion is correct. Holmes never saw the crime being committed and an evolutionist never witnessed common descent (evolution from one life form to another). This sort of evidence does not lead to certainty and your allegation that all evolutionary theory has been established beyond any reasonable doubt is only true with terms are clearly defined.

 

[Ambrose]

Barbarian observes:
No designer worthy of the name would do this.



To use that as an out would required that God twist man into a cobbled-up mess of tetrapod remains, slightly modified to let him walk on two legs. Without scientific or scriptural support, that crashes.



The Flood may be believed as the Good Samaritan may be believed. Whether or not there one or both of these really existed is unimportant.



This is not true for physical death, since God alludes to the fact that Adam was mortal in the Garden. Since the Bible does not say that God altered Adam and Eve anatomically, we can safely regard that as unsupportable.

He does not have to change them anatomically, They do not have to be structured different in order for them to adapt much better. You seem to believe that the Lord has to work under the laws we know in this world. He simply has to change the rules a little and they could be less adapted to two legs. The fact that you may not believe in the flood was relevant to the post and that tells me you seem to be just skipping over my post at least a little, Maybe even for the most part.

 

[zeke]

Much of this discussion involves clarification of terms and is in both our interests to try to sort it all out.

Excellent points but I would say you are missing one other important fact – evolutionary science has been hijacked by those who hold a worldview dominated by materialism – the erroneous notion that nature is all there is, thus God is out of the picture.

The reason the theory of evolution is so controversial is that it is the main scientific prop for scientific naturalism. Students first learn that "evolution is a fact," and then they gradually learn more and more about what that "fact" means. It means that all living things are the product of mindless material forces such as chemical laws, natural selection, and random variation. So God is totally out of the picture, and humans (like everything else) are the accidental product of a purposeless universe. Do you wonder why a lot of people suspect that these claims go far beyond the available evidence? ~ Phillip Johnson , Professor of Law at Berkeley​

 

[Barbarian]

He does not have to change them anatomically,

That is what would be necessary.

They do not have to be structured different in order for them to adapt much better. You seem to believe that the Lord has to work under the laws we know in this world.

I merely observe that He does. They are, after all, His laws.

He simply has to change the rules a little and they could be less adapted to two legs.

No. There would have to be major anatomical restructuring. And even a bit of "rule changing" won't work. In His creation, everything is tied to everything else.

The fact that you may not believe in the flood was relevant to the post and that tells me you seem to be just skipping over my post at least a little, Maybe even for the most part.

The whether the flood or the Good Samaritan are literally history, or parables, is of no consequence at all.

 

[Barbarian]

Excellent points but I would say you are missing one other important fact – evolutionary science has been hijacked by those who hold a worldview dominated by materialism – the erroneous notion that nature is all there is, thus God is out of the picture.

Odd, then that some of the most prominent of biologists have not been materialists.

The reason the theory of evolution is so controversial is that it is the main scientific prop for scientific naturalism.

It is only controversial to those who have so little faith they fear the truth.

Students first learn that "evolution is a fact," and then they gradually learn more and more about what that "fact" means.

They learn photosynthesis is a fact, too, and the then they gradually learn more and more about what that "fact" means.

Here Johnson is doing the lawyer thing. It's what he's been trained to do; to hide the truth that is bad for his client, and to fluff up whatever is good for his client. Precisely because he's terrified of something that follows the truth unconditionally, he hates science.

It means that all living things are the product of mindless material forces such as chemical laws, natural selection, and random variation. So God is totally out of the picture, and humans (like everything else) are the accidental product of a purposeless universe.

As you see, Phillip Johnson fears the truth. Why would a Christian fear the truth? In fact, there is no contradiction between God and His creation. How could there be? Johnson, BTW, has admitted that Archaeopteryx is evidence for evolution. He claims his "designer" might be a "space alien."

Do you agree with him?

 

[Barbarian]

Anatomical data, showing the homologies of human and ape structure. The formation of a fused chromosome in humans, made up of two ape chromosomes. The numerous intermediates between humans and conventional apes, but no intermediates where the theory says they shouldn't be.

A lot of support for the genetic evidence, the methodology of which can be tested on organisms of known descent.

But you keep forgetting that similarity is evidence for common design

Nope. That belief confuses analogous and homologous organisms. Which is why scientists don't accept it. Since it can't account for that, and for the numerous transitionals, and the fact that genetic data demonstrates close relation of homologous organisms but not analogous organisms, the "common designer" religion has been tossed aside by most Christians.

and you have yet to present any real 'transitionals' that prove man-chimp common ancestry.

C'mon. Every one saw what I showed you. Why bother denying it?

Remember, extinct apes are just that - extinct apes.

So is H. ergaster an extinct ape? How about H. erectus? Do you think so? If so, why do you think so? If not, why not?

If you want to deny all these transitionals, it's time to do some explaining.

 

[lordkalvan]

Seems "sticking to your guns" even when incorrect is appropriate for your viewpoint. Thank you.

Sorry, Sparrow, but I don't believe that I am incorrect, but I do accept that your alternative point of view on this particular aspect is reasonable. You argue that in this context valid/convincing does not equate to beyond reasonable doubt, I think that it does. If you would be happier with my argument that the overwhelming majority of scientists accept evolutionary theory as convincing beyond reasonable doubt if I dropped the 'beyond reasonable doubt' part, then so be it. It remains a simple observation, though, that such surveys and polls as have been conducted indicate that most scientists find evolutionary theory to be valid. Project Steve highlights this.

 

[lordkalvan]

But you keep forgetting that similarity is evidence for common design and you have yet to present any real 'transitionals' that prove man-chimp common ancestry.

And you have yet to present any 'proof' that similarity is evidence for common design beyond yiur assertion to this effect.

Remember, extinct apes are just that - extinct apes.

You mean no longer extant members of the related family Hominidae, of which we are one of four still living member species?

 

[lordkalvan]

Much of this discussion involves clarification of terms and is in both our interests to try to sort it all out.

For instance, there are two major types of research in science. One involves rigorous testing of theories and another involves justification of the theories. Sometimes there is overlap because the two methods share similarities but for purpose of explanation we could consider research that has been done in terms of "proving" microevolution (the minute changes that occur within a species) and contrast that with the limitations that are in place while researching data to support change beyond what you understand me to mean as "beyond biblical kind".

Now I know that some evolutionists don’t like to distinguish between micro and macroevolutionary processes, and that’s fine; the distinction may not be important in their everyday work. However, the distinction is important when exploring the question “Is evolution a fact?†It turns out that one type of evolution has been subjected to rigorous testing and passed while the other has not.

Microevolutionary processes within a species is a demonstrable fact. It has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt with rigorous testing. Specifically, random genomic mutations and environmental selection have been shown to create change within a species.

Sherlock Holmes used induction when he collected observable facts and used those facts to reconstruct what happened at a crime scene. (It is interesting to note that Holmes said he was using ‘deduction’ - actually he was using ‘induction’.) In philosophical terms induction is going from particulars and specifics to a single explanation (or generalization), and that is what Holmes did; he went from particular evidence to a single conclusion about who committed the crime.

In the same way, evolutionists collect facts in the natural world and use them to explain or describe the theory of a single common ancestor. This too involves moving from particular field evidence to a single conclusion (sometimes called macroevolution). Although the evidence may appear to support a conclusion, we cannot be certain that either conclusion is correct. Holmes never saw the crime being committed and an evolutionist never witnessed common descent (evolution from one life form to another). This sort of evidence does not lead to certainty and your allegation that all evolutionary theory has been established beyond any reasonable doubt is only true with terms are clearly defined.

Sparrow, this is a post that deserves more attention than I can give it at the moment. I will reply when I can give it this attention.

 

[zeke]

As you see, Phillip Johnson fears the truth. Why would a Christian fear the truth?

Christians don't fear the truth and the truth remains - evolutionism = atheism. Easy concept.

Johnson, BTW, has admitted that Archaeopteryx is evidence for evolution. He claims his "designer" might be a "space alien."

Lol - where does he say that?

 

[zeke]

And you have yet to present any 'proof' that similarity is evidence for common design beyond yiur assertion to this effect.

It is self-evident. Stephen Gould had no problem saying that homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry. Davis and Kenyon agree. Try to keep up.

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​

 

[Sparkey]

Sorry, Sparrow, but I don't believe that I am incorrect, but I do accept that your alternative point of view on this particular aspect is reasonable. You argue that in this context valid/convincing does not equate to beyond reasonable doubt, I think that it does. If you would be happier with my argument that the overwhelming majority of scientists accept evolutionary theory as convincing beyond reasonable doubt if I dropped the 'beyond reasonable doubt' part, then so be it. It remains a simple observation, though, that such surveys and polls as have been conducted indicate that most scientists find evolutionary theory to be valid. Project Steve highlights this.

Yes, I like that better because it states facts and does not attempt to point those facts toward unproven conclusions. I'm perfectly fine with the statement to the effect that most scientists find evolution to be a valid theory. I find evolution to be a valid theory as well. The problem arises when I weigh the theory of evolution (and its assumptions) against what I consider the truth as expressed in the Word of God. I arrive at a different conclusion than you. But that does nothing to say that the theory isn't valid. To me though, the standard of evidence isn't beyond reasonable doubt because I accept the Word of God as evidence.

Confusion (or doubt), in my personal definition, comes when there are two conflicting concepts that are both accepted without the ability to assign a priority to one over another. With the shoe on the other foot, I can see that you would likely object to my belief that the living word of God itself proves God's existence beyond all reasonable doubt. Even if I were to relate all the personal evidence that I have accumulated and show how it supports my belief, and even if I were gifted with a kind of persuasive eloquence so that you could clearly see why I believe the way I do, you would likely still hold back your affirmation my statement and conclusion that I have proven my point beyond all reasonable doubt.

The old conundrum that either things are the way they are (and must be understandable by men) or God is a liar, simply doesn't fly with me. He creates darkness too. I'm thinking about studying the meaning of the phrase, "tohu wa-bohu," translated "without form, and void" because I think there are hidden meanings in the word of God that are discernible to those who prayerfully seek truth. If God said that we are not able to see beyond a boundary, then complaining that we can't see beyond and concluding He must have lied is patently wrong, yet it is an argument that I've heard in various forms all over the place, even here from the mouths of my brothers.

 

[Sparkey]

When we consider evidence that can be directly tested and proofs for different aspects of the theory of evolution I can follow and have no objection to statements that one kind of salamander can go to a different kind of salamander. But it crosses the line when the salamander is said to change to a platypus. Proving evolution beyond 'kind' boundaries would involve crucial tests of its core tenets and assuming that the tests could be carried out, the theory would have to pass the tests before we could say that it is proven beyond reasonable doubt.

The major barrier to the crucial tests is time --too many years are required to observe change from one kind of life to another. One the other hand, theories such as relativity or gravity have been subjected to crucial testing and have passed. Shifts of light during an eclipse were measured back in 1919 and results aligned according to the prediction of theory of relativity. Relativity was tested again by measuring time difference in previously synchronized atomic clocks flown in airplanes and again for the use of satellite global positioning systems. The theory of Gravity was proven the last time you dropped your coffee cup (and I assume it fell). Because of these proofs, the theories are proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

My private opinion aside, this does not mean that any theory that considers change beyond 'kind' is necessarily false or impossible; it does mean, however, that it has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[lordkalvan]

It is self-evident.

If t is self-evident, you will have no trouble explaining why it is self-evident. However, you seem to find it impossible do so.

Stephen Gould had no problem saying that homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry.

But you seem to have a problem showing that Gould said any such thing.

Davis and Kenyon agree. Try to keep up.

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​

Try to keep up yourself; we have been through this before. Davis and Kenyon simply assert what you assert and show no such thing, at the same time citing Gould allegedly remarking something that they are unable to show that he remarked at all.

 

[Sparkey]

If t is self-evident, you will have no trouble explaining why it is self-evident. However, you seem to find it impossible do so.

But you seem to have a problem showing that Gould said any such thing.

Try to keep up yourself; we have been through this before. Davis and Kenyon simply assert what you assert and show no such thing, at the same time citing Gould allegedly remarking something that they are unable to show that he remarked at all.

You did a memorable job in replying to the alleged Gould quote. zeke is just "sticking to his guns," something I'm sure you can appreciate.

Here's some new (to me) information that may help our discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetico-deductive_model

It describes a scientific method that continues but does not result in absolute certainty. I've not finished evaluating our discussion according to this standard, but would like to invite you into my process in advance.

Cordially, Sparrow

 

[zeke]

Davis and Kenyon simply assert what you assert and show no such thing, at the same time citing Gould allegedly remarking something that they are unable to show that he remarked at all.

Are you calling Davis and Kenyon liars? Is that how you refer to everyone who disagrees with you? The fact remain Davis, Kenyon and Gould all recognize what you can't quite digest - the truth that homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry. You are not keeping up.

Dean Kenyon ----received a BSc in physics from the University of Chicago in 1961 and a Ph.D. in biophysics from Stanford University in 1965. In 1965-1966 he was a National Science Foundation Postdoctoral Fellow in Chemical Biodynamics at the University of California, Berkeley, a Research Associate at Ames Research Center. In 1966, he started as an Assistant Professor of Biology at San Francisco State University and became Emeritus in 2001​

 

[zeke]

You did a memorable job in replying to the alleged Gould quote. zeke is just "sticking to his guns," something I'm sure you can appreciate.

What about you, Sparrow - do you agree that homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry or are you 'noncommittal? Do you really think Davis and Kenyon could get away with misquoting Gould? And why would they - homology does support common design. Gould wasn't stupid.