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

[Asyncritus]

I'm a person of faith, for example, and I do accept that we can know many things without directly observing them.

So why do you keep bringing up the fact that we can't see a redwood growing from its seed?

In fact, every seed will produce a tree slightly different than the parent. That's how it works.

Yup. Called variation. Not evolution.

What God did, was make variation the way things are. And over time, variation and natural selection produce the diversity of life.

So I've got 10,000 apple trees, each different from the other. Now are you saying that by 'natural selection' etc one day I'll have some pear trees descended from my apple trees?

It merely shows that evolution works that way.

Evolution clearly doesn't work at all, if that's the sort of thing you mean.

Horses are a recent example, as are birds from reptiles and tetrapods from fish.

All three of these are highly dubious, but you should know that by now.

It is very well-known. Darwin wrote about it, and undergraduates demonstrate it every year.

So do we now rely on Darwin (who has been replaced by 'the new synthesis') and undergraduates to establish the theory?

It's just evidence that it happened. When there's this much evidence from independent sorts of evidence, it becomes compelling.:biglol

They do, however, have a common ancestor. Do you see how we know?

Oh Yeah. Let's see a fossil of it!

Evolutionary theory is consistent with our descent from a single pair of humans.

But not from a single 'common ancestor'. Is this 'common ancestor' thing some kind of joke B?

I think that it's a mistake to take that too far. God makes it very clear in Genesis what was there at the beginning, and male and female were not. Jesus meant "from the beginning of the human race" which began with two humans. Which species, I do not know, nor does it matter.

You're perfectly right when you say: Jesus meant "from the beginning of the human race" which began with two humans.

'Which species' is a silly question. If He was talking about Adam and Eve, which He clearly was, then Homo sapiens is the obvious one. Not Amoeba proteus.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
I'm a person of faith, for example, and I do accept that we can know many things without directly observing them.

So why do you keep bringing up the fact that we can't see a redwood growing from its seed?

Just pointing out the error of saying "we can't directly observe anything that takes that long to happen, so it can't happen."

Just BTW, you questioned my statement that sequoias evolved from seaweeds. The reasoning is simple. Life (evolutionarily speaking) began in the sea. Therefore, the first plants were the algae or seaweeds, which are the biggest ones.

You've gotten confused again. No algae gave rise to land plants. Rather, some specialized freshwater plants seem to have been the immediate ancestors of land plants. But of course, they didn't give rise to redwoods, either. They came much later.

Barbarian observes:
In fact, every seed will produce a tree slightly different than the parent. That's how it works.

Yup. Called variation. Not evolution.

If you prefer "descent with modification", that will do. It's what Darwin called it.

Barbarian observes:
What God did, was make variation the way things are. And over time, variation and natural selection produce the diversity of life.

So I've got 10,000 apple trees, each different from the other. Now are you saying that by 'natural selection' etc one day I'll have some pear trees descended from my apple trees?

Geneticists say they had a common ancestor, actually.

Barbarian observes:
Horses are a recent example, as are birds from reptiles and tetrapods from fish.

All three of these are highly dubious

C'mon, you learned about this earlier. You know better than that.

So do we now rely on Darwin (who has been replaced by 'the new synthesis') and undergraduates to establish the theory?

Just pointing out that it's easily demonstrated.

It's just evidence that it happened. When there's this much evidence from independent sorts of evidence, it becomes compelling.

Oh Yeah. Let's see a fossil of it!

Sure. Here's Archaeopteryx, along with a modern bird and a small theropod dinosaur. Your assignment is to classify it as a bird or a dinosaur, and tell us how you made the decision.

Here's another transitional. Your job here is to tell us whether it's a mammal or a reptile, and how you decided:

Barbarian observes:
Evolutionary theory is consistent with our descent from a single pair of humans.

But not from a single 'common ancestor'.

Can't think of any better example of a common ancestor.

(Async tries the old "male and female" gambit)

Barbarian chuckles:
I think that it's a mistake to take that too far. God makes it very clear in Genesis what was there at the beginning, and male and female were not. Jesus meant "from the beginning of the human race" which began with two humans. Which species, I do not know, nor does it matter.

You're perfectly right when you say: Jesus meant "from the beginning of the human race" which began with two humans.

Which, as you learned, is consistent with evolution.

'Which species' is a silly question. If He was talking about Adam and Eve, which He clearly was, then Homo sapiens is the obvious one.

You don't think H. neanderalis was human? H. erectus? H. ergaster? Seriously?

 

[Asyncritus]

Barbarian observes:

Just pointing out the error of saying "we can't directly observe anything that takes that long to happen, so it can't happen."

That's a reasonable statement. But the other side of that coin is that an infinite amount of time doesn't make the impossible happen! Which is what evolution is claiming.

You've gotten confused again. No algae gave rise to land plants. Rather, some specialized freshwater plants seem to have been the immediate ancestors of land plants. But of course, they didn't give rise to redwoods, either. They came much later.

Snigger.

Yeah, of course, of course.

Ever heard such tripe as this:

Probably an algal scum formed on land 1,200 million years ago. In the Ordovician period, around 450 million years ago, SHAZZAM! the first land plants appeared.[1] These began to diversify SHAZZAM! in the late Silurian Period, around 420 million years ago, and the results of their diversification SHAZZAM! are displayed in remarkable detail in an early Devonian fossil assemblage from the Rhynie chert. This chert preserved early plants in cellular detail, petrified in volcanic springs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_plants

But all are agreed, are they not, that life began in the sea? And this famous ALGAL scum? Seaweeds are algae, and some idiot is bound to describe them as scum - after all they float on the surface, don't they?

However, additional phylogenetic dilemmas are the evolution of bryophytes from algae and the transition from these first land plants to the pteridophytes. All these very large evolutionary jumps are discussed...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2686025/

You get the impression that they don't have a clue?

Land plants probably evolved SHAZZAM! from marine plants, moved into freshwater SHAZZAM!and finally SHAZZAM! onto land. This probable transition is from marine green algae to simple bryophyte type plants to vascular plants:

http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/pciesiel/gly3150/plant.html

Somebody shoot him, please, and put him out of his misery...

So I'm right. Sequioas did evolve from seaweeds or something like it. Given zillions of years, of course. Do some reading up, B. It's frightening reading the stupidity you see.

Barbarian observes:
In fact, every seed will produce a tree slightly different than the parent. That's how it works.

If you prefer "descent with modification", that will do. It's what Darwin called it.

Er, no. I call it 'variation'. But whatever Darwin called it, you haven't answered the question. Can I confidently expect a few pear trees in my population of apple trees in a zillion years time?

Barbarian observes:
What God did, was make variation the way things are. And over time, variation and natural selection produce the diversity of life.

You got that wrong. God created all this diversity, and the variation we see was built in. Cart before horse, I think they call it.

Geneticists say they had a common ancestor, actually.

Geneticists can say what they like - but cold, hard, nasty facts are what I want. Observable and observed proof. Luther Burbank should have shut them up, but some people don't learn, do they, Barbarian?

Barbarian observes:
Horses are a recent example, as are birds from reptiles and tetrapods from fish.

C'mon, you learned about this earlier. You know better than that.

Go look up what Eldredge said about the horse exhibit in his museum. I won't quote mine him. You go do it. Let us know what you find. No quote-mining now, mind.

And you still haven't managed to get that fish out of water on to land and surviving yet. I want to hear about this.

Sure. Here's Archaeopteryx, along with a modern bird and a small theropod dinosaur. Your assignment is to classify it as a bird or a dinosaur, and tell us how you made the decision.

There are no soft tissues. Without such important data, I cannot make the classification, and neither, for that matter, can anyone else, with any degree of certainty. You do remember the coelacanth debacle, don't you?

Here's another transitional. Your job here is to tell us whether it's a mammal or a reptile, and how you decided:

How much of this is plaster of Paris?

Barbarian observes:
Evolutionary theory is consistent with our descent from a single pair of humans.

Can't think of any better example of a common ancestor.

(Async tries the old "male and female" gambit)

Er, what's that please?

Barbarian chuckles:
I think that it's a mistake to take that too far. God makes it very clear in Genesis what was there at the beginning, and male and female were not. Jesus meant "from the beginning of the human race" which began with two humans. Which species, I do not know, nor does it matter.

As I said, it's Homo sapiens without doubt.

Which, as you learned, is consistent with evolution.

Did I?

You don't think H. neanderalis was human? H. erectus? H. ergaster? Seriously?

I think all and sundry should go look at The Darwin Papers on the subject of human evolution before swallowing this too uncritically. Here:

http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/number9/Darwin9.htm

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Just pointing out the error of saying "we can't directly observe anything that takes that long to happen, so it can't happen."

That's a reasonable statement.

Right. That's why the YE argument falls apart.

But the other side of that coin is that an infinite amount of time doesn't make the impossible happen!

Comes down to evidence. And, as you learned, it's abundant and diverse.

Barbarian observes:
You've gotten confused again. No algae gave rise to land plants. Rather, some specialized freshwater plants seem to have been the immediate ancestors of land plants. But of course, they didn't give rise to redwoods, either. They came much later.

(doesn't know what to say)

It's not surprising. Few people know much about the classification of plants in oceans or lakes.

Ever heard such tripe as this:
Probably an algal scum formed on land 1,200 million years ago. In the Ordovician period, around 450 million years ago, SHAZZAM! the first land plants appeared.

You see it a lot on creationist sites. As I said, it's because most creationists have no clue about the evidence. To anyone not familiar with science, much of nature looks like magic. In fact, the simplest land plants known are not all that far removed from water plants that in turn look a lot like colonial forms of algae.

However, additional phylogenetic dilemmas are the evolution of bryophytes from algae and the transition from these first land plants to the pteridophytes.

Well, that's a little behind the time. The earliest known land plant, Cooksonia, lacks leaves, roots, and most other land plant features, but has xylem. So it's a nice intermediate between extremely primitive land plants like liverworts (which are byrophytes) and horsetails (which are pteridophytes).

All these very large evolutionary jumps are discussed...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2686025/

Hmm... they need to update that, um?

You get the impression that they don't have a clue?

Hard to keep up on everything, I guess...

Another problem for land plants is that they miss the upward force of the water. To be able to keep upright supporting tissue is needed. Already in Cooksonia xylem vessels have been recorded. These are vessels with annular or spiral shaped thickenings at the walls, which give them solidity. Through these vessels water is transported from the soil to the plant cells.
http://steurh.home.xs4all.nl/eng/old1.html

If you're starting to get the feeling that there's an intermediate for everything, you're on the right track.

Land plants probably evolved SHAZZAM! from marine plants, moved into freshwater SHAZZAM!and finally SHAZZAM! onto land.

To the ignorant, it must appear so. But as you see, that's not the case.

So I'm right. Sequioas did evolve from seaweeds or something like it.

Nope. From more primitive conifers. You've been misled again.

Barbarian observes:
In fact, every seed will produce a tree slightly different than the parent. That's how it works.

If you prefer "descent with modification", that will do. It's what Darwin called it.

Er, no. I call it 'variation'.

Darwin called it variation, too. His discovery was that variation, over time, accumlates.

But whatever Darwin called it, you haven't answered the question. Can I confidently expect a few pear trees in my population of apple trees in a zillion years time?

If they survive as a lineage, and humans don't keep selecting them to be apple trees, they will change to something else.

Barbarian observes
What God did, was make variation the way things are. And over time, variation and natural selection produce the diversity of life.

God created all this diversity

Yep. You just don't approve of the way He did it.

and the variation we see was built in.

Nope. Organisms can have at most, two alleles for every gene locus. All the other (usually scores of them) alleles in populations evolved by random mutation and natural selection.

Barbarian observes:
Geneticists say they had a common ancestor, actually.

Geneticists can say what they like - but cold, hard, nasty facts are what I want.

You get pretty cranky whenever I start citing evidence.

Observable and observed proof. Luther Burbank should have shut them up

Burbank denied Mendel's discoveries. He didn't believe in genes or the nature of dominant and recessive traits. This led him to the classic anti-Darwinian philosophy of human eugenics.

Most historians gloss over this distasteful eugenical aspect of Burbank's work, preferring instead to amplify and expand the prodigious mythology surrounding Burbank, the "genius gardener" His eugenic philosophy forms an unsettling inconsistency with the public legend that California journalists, politicians, his chroniclers, and not least of all, Burbank himself, created...In the early life of the eugenics movement in America, California and Luther Burbank led the way. In his 1907 book, Training the Human Plant, Burbank said:
It would, if possible, be best absolutely to prohibit in every State in the Union the marriage of the physically, mentally and morally unfit. If we take a plant which we recognize as poisonous and cross it with another which is not poisonous and thus make the wholesome plant evil, so it menaces all who come in contact with it, this is criminal enough. But supposed we blend together two poisonous plants and make a third even more virulent, and set their evil descendants adrift to multiply over the earth, are we not distinct foes to the race? What, then, shall we say of two people of absolutely defined physical impairment who are allowed to marry and rear children? It is a crime against the state and every individual in the state. And if these physically degenerate are also morally degenerate, the crime becomes all the more appalling".
http://voices.yahoo.com/the-eugenics-luther-burbank-precursor-cloning-524713.html?cat=9

Darwinians like Punnett and Morgan showed that Burbank's ideas were scientifically wrong, and Darwin himself said such thinking was "overwhelming evil." But the Geneticists' warnings fell on deaf ears and the Holocaust was one of the consequences.

but some people don't learn, do they, Barbarian?

Belatedly, they did. After over a hundred million deaths.

Barbarian observes:
Horses are a recent example, as are birds from reptiles and tetrapods from fish.

C'mon, you learned about this earlier. You know better than that.

Go look up what Eldredge said about the horse exhibit in his museum. I won't quote mine him.

Good. What Eldredge says is that horse evolution was not a straight tree, but a branching bush. He criticized the museum for only showing one branch, the surviving branch. Surprise.

Barbarian:
Sure. Here's Archaeopteryx, along with a modern bird and a small theropod dinosaur. Your assignment is to classify it as a bird or a dinosaur, and tell us how you made the decision.

There are no soft tissues. Without such important data, I cannot make the classification

Sure you can. Any high school biology student can. Soft tissues are not required to separated mammals and reptiles. The single defining point is skeletal.

No more stalling. Make your choice. And tell us how.

You do remember the coelacanth debacle, don't you?

Yep. The gullible thought that the modern coelacanth was the same as ancient ones. And as you learned, they are highly evolved from ancient ones.

Barbarian observes:
Here's another transitional. Your job here is to tell us whether it's a mammal or a reptile, and how you decided:

How much of this is plaster of Paris?

None at all. It's a CAT scan of a real fossil. No more stalling. Make your decision and tell us how you decided.

Barbarian observes:
Evolutionary theory is consistent with our descent from a single pair of humans.

Can't think of any better example of a common ancestor.

(Async tries the old "male and female" gambit)

Barbarian chuckles:
I think that it's a mistake to take that too far. God makes it very clear in Genesis what was there at the beginning, and male and female were not. Jesus meant "from the beginning of the human race" which began with two humans. Which species, I do not know, nor does it matter.

As I said, it's Homo sapiens without doubt.

Barbarian asks:
You don't think H. neanderalis was human? H. erectus? H. ergaster? Seriously?

(declines to answer, again)

Would you be offended if I asked you to learn a little about the subject so you could give us an intelligent answer?

 

[Sparkey]

But whatever Darwin called it, you haven't answered the question. Can I confidently expect a few pear trees in my population of apple trees in a zillion years time?

If they [apple trees] survive as a lineage, and humans don't keep selecting them to be apple trees, they will change to something else.

Seriously, Barbarian? Apple growers try for as much variation as is possible in their effort to offer a "new" apple to the market. As do pear growers. If it were possible to grow an "apple-pear" or a "pear-apple" they certainly would. Have you tried this pear? They go by different names, Asian-Pears or Apple Pears or other names but they are very, very good tasting (not hybrids).

Why not point to this as the "evidence" to show that zillions of years are not needed? Why not declare this fruit a "transitional"? Does the existence of an Asian Pear prove (to you) that your theory concerning apple trees and pears is true? Or do you hesitate because those declarations could be proven wrong all to easily.

If we can directly test and directly observe something, you simply can't claim that it supports your theory, right? But what about those things that can not be verified or proven, what about speculations based on fossilized skeletons only? They look similar so one MUST have descended from the other?

Just pointing out the error of saying "we can't directly observe anything that takes that long to happen, so it can't happen."

I have not said that variation within kinds can not happen but instead have said that God created fruit bearing trees, that produce "after its kind," and were created with "their seed in them". You've declined to tell us what you think the phrases "after its kind, and "their seed in them" means in your theology. The two phrases taken together defeat your theory. Correct me if I am wrong but your theory believes that God did not create their seed within and cause them to reproduce "after their kind". What was the bible talking about then?

And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

Notice the words, "and it was so." Can you show how fruit trees don't yield fruit after its kind, or how its seed is not in itself? God said... and it was so. My problem with your argument here is encapsulated in "God said it was so ... and Barbarian 'observes' that it is not so." Can you show me one fruit bearing tree that defies what God said was so, or is your only contribution the speculation that given "zillions" of years it MUST happen?

 

[Barbarian]

Async writes:
But whatever Darwin called it, you haven't answered the question. Can I confidently expect a few pear trees in my population of apple trees in a zillion years time?

Barbarian observes:
If they [apple trees] survive as a lineage, and humans don't keep selecting them to be apple trees, they will change to something else.

Seriously, Barbarian?

Yep.

Apple growers try for as much variation as is possible in their effort to offer a "new" apple to the market. As do pear growers.

Haven't seen one that wanted to make something else.

If it were possible to grow an "apple-pear" or a "pear-apple" they certainly would. Have you tried this pear? They go by different names, Asian-Pears or Apple Pears or other names but they are very, very good tasting (not hybrids).
Why not point to this as the "evidence" to show that zillions of years are not needed? Why not declare this fruit a "transitional"?

Hawthorns and quinces are examples of such divergence. There are certainly other pome fruits related to apples and pears. But generally, breeders don't try to make pears of apples or vice versa.

Would you like to see the evidence for recent common descent of these fruit trees?

Does the existence of an Asian Pear prove (to you) that your theory concerning apple trees and pears is true?

As I said, it indicates diversity from a common ancestor.

Or do you hesitate because those declarations could be proven wrong all to easily.

That's been tested.
http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/janick-papers/rosaceae.pdf

If we can directly test and directly observe something, you simply can't claim that it supports your theory, right?

That's the idea. So the notion that whales once had legs, or that there should be intermediates between birds and dinosaurs, or that there should be man-like apes in the fossil record, or that there should be "frogamanders", were all predictions made before the data was done. Common descent was predicted long before DNA testing verified it.

But what about those things that can not be verified or proven, what about speculations based on skeletons only?

Data like any other. Again, the prediction that there must have been organisms at one time that were intermediate between mammals and reptiles has been verified by many, many fossils showing just that. Even the observation that the mammalian jaw has one type of joint and the reptilian jaw has an entirely different one was explained by a number of transitional therapsids that have both joints.

They look similar so one MUST have descended from the other?

That would not work. You'd confuse analogous structures with homologous ones. It's more detailed than that.

Barbarian observes:
Just pointing out the error of saying "we can't directly observe anything that takes that long to happen, so it can't happen."

I have not said that variation within kinds can not happen but instead have said that God created fruit bearing trees, that produce "after its kind," and were created with "their seed in them". You've declined to tell us what you think the phrases "after its kind, and "their seed in them" means in your theology.

It has no theological meaning. It's a formulaic statement.

The two phrases taken together defeat your theory.

Nope. God did create all living things according to their kind, but not magically by poofing them. He used natural processes as He does for most things in this world. By using "seed", which vary from the parents, He made possible all the variation we see in nature.

Correct me if I am wrong but your theory believes that God did not create their seed within and cause them to reproduce "after their kind".

Since God does not say that living things reproduce after their kind, I don't see a problem.

What was the bible talking about then?

Since we know that variation is in the seed, it hints at the way He brought forth all that variation.

My problem with your argument here is encapsulated in "God said it was so ... and Barbarian 'observes' that it is not so."

I'm just willing to let Him do it His way. The problem is in creationists not accepting that variation is a fact in all "seed."

As Darwin wrote...

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

Far more grand than a mere "designer" or a demiurge "poofer." I know you don't see God as limited like that, and I know that YE creationists are often as devout in their love for God as other Christians. But can you see what Darwin is saying here? A God great enough to make a world in which the Earth itself brings forth life as He intended, and reproducing with variation built into the very fabric of life is surely more wonderful and majestic than one having to build living things one at a time.

 

[Sparkey]

Yeah, Barbarian. I get what you're saying and I'm not trying to say that you have no faith, nor am I saying that it doesn't take more faith to believe what you believe at all. It's not a quantity judgment, so that if somebody believes that "God poofed" stuff has "less wonder for God" than the one who believes that all life came from a single common ancestor.

I simply do not agree with your assessment of what God declared was so. I believe that God worked (that He was active in the creation process) for all creation.

Further, I see the creation of Man to be utterly distinct and separate b/c only Man was created in God's image. The Bible doesn't draw distinct lines between species (there are less than 100 "kinds" mentioned); the lines that are drawn are man's attempt to stuff things into categories, not God's.

But the bible does show the concept that both plants and animals (and all living things) were created "after their kind" and "with their seed within". You say that the fact that all living things were created "after their kind" and "with their seed within" merely means that living things can reproduce. If that was what was meant, why didn't God say so?

(( PS - Thanks for the Purdue.edu link, but I wasn't able to download the PDF - normally my computer has no problem, but I did try. I also appreciate your admission that the best you can do, in showing your thoughts about where we came from biblically, is say that the bible "hints" at a process that comes from the imaginations of men. ))

 

[Barbarian]

I simply do not agree with your assessment of what God declared was so. I believe that God worked (that He was active in the creation process) for all creation.

I do also. I just agree with Augustine that He created things in the beginning with a lot more potentiality built in.

Further, I see the creation of Man to be utterly distinct and separate b/c only Man was created in God's image.

I do also. But I make a distinction between our bodies, which are produced naturally, and our souls, which are given directly by God. The soul is the way we are in the image of God. God is a spirit, and sprits have no body, as Jesus says.

The Bible doesn't draw distinct lines between species (there are less than 100 "kinds" mentioned); the lines that are drawn are man's attempt to stuff things into categories, not God's.

It's true. Species are mutable, and so they aren't hard categories. Ring species show that this is so, as do recent speciations, which normally happen gradually.

But the bible does show the concept that both plants and animals (and all living things) were created "after their kind" and "with their seed within". You say that the fact that all living things were created "after their kind" and "with their seed within" merely means that living things can reproduce.

More importantly, because the variation in a population is from the seed, God made populations inherently able to evolve.

If that was what was meant, why didn't God say so?

Probably for the same reason He didn't discuss protons.

(( PS - Thanks for the Purdue.edu link, but I wasn't able to download the PDF - normally my computer has no problem, but I did try. I also appreciate your admission that the best you can do, in showing your thoughts about where we came from biblically, is say that the bible "hints" at a process that comes from the imaginations of men. ))

The link shows the evidence for the common descent of apples, pears, etc. Very good link; sorry you couldn't see it. Much of what we see in Genesis is remarkably consistent with what science has recently discovered. Clearly, how new species form is not what Genesis is about, but for example, the revelation that living things were brought forth by the earth is consistent with the evidence accumulating for abiogenesis.

 

[zeke]

Clearly, how new species form is not what Genesis is about, but for example, the revelation that living things were brought forth by the earth is consistent with the evidence accumulating for abiogenesis.

Could you please provide more details regarding your version of Darwinism and abiogenesis? Doesn't classical Darwinism claim that life arose from non-life via random chance (a logical absurdity)? In your theology did God create "in the beginning"? Is your "theistic evolutionism" based on faith or science?

“The belief that life on earth arose spontaneously from non-living matter, is simply a matter of faith in strict reductionism and is based entirely on ideology.”

Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory and Molecular Biology (Cambridge University Press)​

 

[Barbarian]

Could you please provide more details regarding your version of Darwinism and abiogenesis? Doesn't classical Darwinism claim that life arose from non-life via random chance

No.

In your theology did God create "in the beginning"?

For a Christian, God created all things. The problem for YE creationists, is they don't like the way He handled some of it.

Is your "theistic evolutionism"

I never liked the term. All science is compatible with theism. And there's only one form of evolutionary theory.

based on faith or science?

Science depends on evidence. Faith depends on itself. YE conflates the two, which is one reason it doesn't work.

“The belief that life on earth arose spontaneously from non-living matter, is simply a matter of faith in strict reductionism and is based entirely on ideology.â€
Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory and Molecular Biology (Cambridge University Press)

I'm sure Hubert is very sincere in his belief. But God says that the earth brought forth living things, and I do not think God is a reductionist at all, much less a strict one.

 

[lordkalvan]

...I'm sure Hubert is very sincere in his belief. But God says that the earth brought forth living things, and I do not think God is a reductionist at all, much less a strict one.

Hubert Yockey may, indeed, be sincere in his belief, but his arguments concerning the likeliness or otherwise of natural abiogenesis occurring on Earth are based on various questionable assumptions (that a two-bit proto-gene could not replicate because it would need longer chains, for example) and fallacies (that the improbability he calculates of one particular protein arising by chance means that this improbability applies to any protein and that its arising is a matter of chance alone, for example). That Yockey is widely quoted on innumerable creationist sites leads me to guess that the reference comes from such a site and reflects no knowledge of the primary source at all.

 

[zeke]

I never liked the term.

What part of 'theistic evolution' do you not like?

All science is compatible with theism.

Agreed - science is compatible with theism. However, Darwinian lore - the creation myth of secular humanism - is not science and it is not compatible with the Judeo-Christian worldview. Richard Dawkins doesn't think theism is compatible with naturalistic evolution (atheism) and I would agree with him.

I'm sure Hubert is very sincere in his belief. But God says that the earth brought forth living things, and I do not think God is a reductionist at all, much less a strict one.

You misunderstand the truth Yockey is giving you - the statement made by Darwinists that life on earth arose spontaneously from non-living matter via naturalism is a statement of religion not science and that form of religion is being taught in public schools as science. Pseudoscience should not be taught in schools. Easy concept.

 

[zeke]

Hubert Yockey may, indeed, be sincere in his belief, but his arguments concerning the likeliness or otherwise of natural abiogenesis occurring on Earth are based on various questionable assumptions (that a two-bit proto-gene could not replicate because it would need longer chains, for example) and fallacies (that the improbability he calculates of one particular protein arising by chance means that this improbability applies to any protein and that its arising is a matter of chance alone, for example).

Do you have scientific proof that life arose from non-life via chance or is that notion simply part of your creation myth? There are only two possibilities - right? Special creation or spontaneous generation (an absurdity). God is the correct answer of course.

"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution."

George Wald, "Innovation and Biology," Scientific American​

 

[Barbarian]

What part of 'theistic evolution' do you not like?

The conflation of science and faith. Bad idea, that.

Agreed - science is compatible with theism. However, Darwinian lore - the creation myth of secular humanism - is not science and it is not compatible with the Judeo-Christian worldview.

You've been misled about that. The reason scientists accept evolutionary theory is because of the evidence.

Richard Dawkins doesn't think theism is compatible with naturalistic evolution (atheism) and I would agree with him.

Atheists and YE creationists often share an agenda to make science and faith incompatible.

Barbarian observes:
I'm sure Hubert is very sincere in his belief. But God says that the earth brought forth living things, and I do not think God is a reductionist at all, much less a strict one.

You misunderstand the truth Yockey is giving you

Sorry, God trumps Yockey.

the statement made by Darwinists that life on earth arose spontaneously from non-living matter via naturalism is a...

...strawman. Evolutionary theory is not about the way life began. It's been that way from the start. Even Darwin thought God just created the first living things.l

Pseudoscience should not be taught in schools.

Which is why creationism isn't taught in public schools.

Easy concept.

Yep.

There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God.

That's only one. God says the earth brought forth living things, according to His will.

 

[zeke]

Would you like to see the evidence for recent common descent of these fruit trees?

I would prefer to see evidence from science that man and chimp have a common ancestor. Do you have evidence that proves they do or do you still believe that notion via faith?

 

[zeke]

The reason scientists accept evolutionary theory is because of the evidence.

Again, you appear to confuse biological science with Darwinism. Bad mistake.

Atheists and YE creationists often share an agenda to make science and faith incompatible.

Are you saying science is based on faith?

Barbarian observes:
I'm sure Hubert is very sincere in his belief. But God says that the earth brought forth living things, and I do not think God is a reductionist at all, much less a strict one.

Does God say life came from non-life via chance as Darwinists claim? You dance around that question - why?

Evolutionary theory is not about the way life began. It's been that way from the start. Even Darwin thought God just created the first living things.

You are wrong - if life didn't arise from non-life by chance Darwinism is dead in the water. What about Darwin's "warm little pond" - I think you have been mislead by your Darwinian trainers. Darwin died an atheist with no need for God (in his mind).

It is true that Darwin declined to call himself an atheist. But his motive, clearly expressed to the atheist intellectual Edward Aveling (incidentally the common-law husband of Karl Marx's daughter) was that Darwin didn't want to upset people. Atheism, in Darwin's view, was all well and good for the intelligentsia, but ordinary people were not yet "ripe" for atheism. So he called himself an agnostic, largely for diplomatic reasons..

In any case, what Darwin chose to call himself, as a pillar of his local parish in the nineteenth century, is of less interest than the cogency of the arguments themselves. Before Darwin came along, it was pretty difficult to be an atheist, at least to be an atheist free of nagging doubts. Darwin triumphantly made it EASY to be an intellectually fulfilled and satisfied atheist. That doesn't mean that understanding Darwin drives you inevitably to atheism. But it certainly constitutes a giant step in that direction. ~ Richard Dawkins​

Why does Dawkins say that Darwin made it EASY to be an intellectually fulfilled and satisfied atheist? Is it because Darwinism teaches atheism? How does that work with your version of theism? Be careful how you answer that - self-incrimination is an easy trap to fall into - yes?

 

[lordkalvan]

Do you have scientific proof that life arose from non-life via chance or is that notion simply part of your creation myth?

Do you have scientific proof that life cannot arise by naturalistic processes? If you don't, then the possibility remains open and research will continue into the naturalistic origins of life.

There are only two possibilities - right? Special creation or spontaneous generation (an absurdity).

First of all, as has been pointed out to you before, these are not necessarily the only possibilities. Secondly, your personal incredulity about something being 'an absurdity' is not evidence that it is 'an absurdity'. You have failed to establish by anything other than that personal incredulity that naturalistic abiogenesis is 'an absurdity'.

God is the correct answer of course.

There's no 'of course' about it, and certainly none that you have established. A devout Hindu will tell you that 'of course' Lord Brahma is 'the correct answer'.

"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution."

George Wald, "Innovation and Biology," Scientific American​

As this reference has already been addressed and critiqued, wheeling it out again fails to impress.

 

[lordkalvan]

I would prefer to see evidence from science that man and chimp have a common ancestor. Do you have evidence that proves they do or do you still believe that notion via faith?

What evidence would lead you to conclude that Homo sapiens and Pan troglodytes share a common ancestor? What evidence do you suppose leads some scientists to argue that chimpanzees should be reclassified as members of the genus Homo?

 

[Barbarian]

I would prefer to see evidence from science that man and chimp have a common ancestor.

Again? You have a short memory.

First, there is the genetic evidence, showing that humans and chimps are more closely related to each other than either is to any other organism. And we know that works, because we can check it by looking at the genomes of organisms of known descent.

Second, the fossil record shows numerous transitionals between humans and other primates.

Third, as Huxley showed when he routed Owen in a debate on humans and apes, the human brain is an ape brain, with no additional structures, just enlarged ones.

Do you have evidence that proves they do or do you still believe that notion via faith?

For the YE, evidence is so painful as to merit pretending it doesn't exist.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
The reason scientists accept evolutionary theory is because of the evidence.

Again, you appear to confuse biological science with Darwinism.

As you learned, scientists accepted Darwinism, because of the evidence.[/QUOTE]

(Zeke says he agrees with Dawkins)

Barbarian observes:
Atheists and YE creationists often share an agenda to make science and faith incompatible.

Are you saying science is based on faith?

I'm saying your faith in YE creationism has causes you to embrace the doctrines of atheism.

Barbarian observes:
I'm sure Hubert is very sincere in his belief. But God says that the earth brought forth living things, and I do not think God is a reductionist at all, much less a strict one.

Does God say life came from non-life via chance as Darwinists claim?

Barbarian observes:
Evolutionary theory is not about the way life began. It's been that way from the start. Even Darwin thought God just created the first living things.

You are wrong

Nope. You're wrong:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin The Origin of Species

if life didn't arise from non-life by chance Darwinism is dead in the water.

You're wrong again. And it's been that way since Darwin wrote about it.

What about Darwin's "warm little pond"

His idea of the way God did it. But notice it's not part of his theory of evolution.

Darwin died an atheist with no need for God (in his mind).

Darwin merely said he was leaning to agnosticism.

In any case, what Darwin chose to call himself, as a pillar of his local parish in the nineteenth century, is of less interest than the cogency of the arguments themselves. Before Darwin came along, it was pretty difficult to be an atheist, at least to be an atheist free of nagging doubts. Darwin triumphantly made it EASY to be an intellectually fulfilled and satisfied atheist.

You are a follower of Dawkins, aren't you? Are you an atheist, trolling a Christian board?

Why does Dawkins say that Darwin made it EASY to be an intellectually fulfilled and satisfied atheist?

Because you and he want so desperately to make science and faith incompatible.

Is it because Darwinism teaches atheism? How does that work with your version of theism? Be careful how you answer that - self-incrimination is an easy trap to fall into - yes?

I think you've given us a great demonstration.