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

[zeke]

Do you have scientific proof that life cannot arise by naturalistic processes?

I agree with Wald - naturalistic abiogenesis is scientifically impossible. Again, I ask - do you have scientific evidence that proves life arose from non-life via your version naturalism?

First of all, as has been pointed out to you before, these are not necessarily the only possibilities.

You remain confused on this issue and as Wald correctly noted there is no third choice. The two choices remain - (1) special creation via God or (2) naturalistic abiogenesis, which remains a scientifically impossible absurdity.

For the record - what "mysterious scientific dogma" do you offer as a 'third choice'?

 

[Barbarian]

I agree with Wald - naturalistic abiogenesis is scientifically impossible.

I agree with God. He says that's how He did it.

Again, I ask - do you have scientific evidence that proves life arose from non-life via your version naturalism?

If God's testimony doesn't convince you, perhaps the evidence might. Would you like me to remind you of it again?

You remain confused on this issue and as Wald correctly noted there is no third choice. The two choices remain - (1) special creation via God or (2) naturalistic abiogenesis,

That's only one choice. They are two ways of looking at the same thing.

which remains a scientifically impossible absurdity.

Not according to God.

 

[lordkalvan]

I agree with Wald - naturalistic abiogenesis is scientifically impossible. Again, I ask - do you have scientific evidence that proves life arose from non-life via your version naturalism?

Why do you agree with Wald? Do you think Wald may have changed his mind if he was aware of the state of current research into naturalistic origins of life? And I will ask again if you have scientific evidence that life cannot originate as the result of naturalistic processes? What limitations do you place on your version of God that he would be unable to create the physical conditions in which life could originate naturalistically?

You remain confused on this issue and as Wald correctly noted there is no third choice.

Not nearly as confused as you remain by clinging to your assumption that because you can only imagine two choices, there are no others, or that of your two choices one is 'an absurdity' simply because you dclare it to be so. Let me point out again that, even if life requires a supernatural explanation (which i do not believe it does), you have failed to establish that your version of the supernatural creator is the only valid one.

The two choices remain - (1) special creation via God or (2) naturalistic abiogenesis, which remains a scientifically impossible absurdity.

Not so. See above.

For the record - what "mysterious scientific dogma" do you offer as a 'third choice'?

I offer no mysterious scientific dogma, simply speculation along the same lines as you propose when advocating a supernatural creator limited in his power to what you regard as acceptable for him.

Two speculations (there are others): Turtles all the way down. Or maybe something analogous to Robert Heinlein's 'All You Zombies'. You are offering us a false dilemma, an either/or fallacy.

 

[zeke]

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.

Once again you fail to prove that which you can't prove. Genetic similarity is evidence for common design. A Creator-God could have repeatedly used existing species in situ as the blueprint for constructing more advanced species. Even Stephen Gould admitted that homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry.

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​

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

The fossil record completely fails to support the notion of universal common ancestry as you well know. Have you ever found that line of fossils that connects man and chimp to your alleged common ancestor or are you still searching?

“No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way... To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.â€

― Henry Gee, In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life​

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.

Mentioning Huxley and waiving you hands in the air proves nothing my friend. We are looking for evidence that proves man/chimp common ancestry - got any?

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

But you have presented no evidence per normal and what is 'painful' is watching theistic evolutionists fail in their effort to blend theism with the atheism required by Darwinian evolution.

 

[lordkalvan]

Zeke, you really should stop wheeling out the claim regarding what Gould remarked when you have consistently been unable to show that he declared any such thing. This does your argument no credit at all. Also, your Gee reference is a quotemine, as has been shown by linking you to Gee's own comments. Do you imagine we have all forgotten?

 

[zeke]

Two speculations (there are others): Turtles all the way down. Or maybe something analogous to Robert Heinlein's 'All You Zombies'.

Is that the extent of your philosophical expertise? I will choose the God of Abraham who created the universe - "in the beginning".

 

[zeke]

Zeke, you really should stop wheeling out the claim regarding what Gould remarked when you have consistently been unable to show that he declared any such thing.

Are you calling Davis and Kenyon liars? Henry Gee's words are what they are - you have yet to prove him incorrect.

 

[Barbarian]

Lord Kalvan writes:
Zeke, you really should stop wheeling out the claim regarding what Gould remarked when you have consistently been unable to show that he declared any such thing.

Zeke responds:

Are you calling Davis and Kenyon liars?

Just give us a checkable source, which shows Darwin said what you claim he did. If you do that, it puts and end to your problem.

If you don't, then your troubles continue. Simple as that.

 

[lordkalvan]

Is that the extent of your philosophical expertise? I will choose the God of Abraham who created the universe - "in the beginning".

Whatever degree of superiority you may feel regarding your philosophical expertise, it remains that your choice lacks any evidential basis at all and has no more intrinsic worth than the two speculations I offered you. I note you simply ignored the rest of the post you are responding to....

 

[lordkalvan]

Are you calling Davis and Kenyon liars?

As neither they nor you can support their assertion about what Gould declared in this context, I leave it for others to decide the merits of your continued use of their assertion as evidence in support of your arguments.

Henry Gee's words are what they are - you have yet to prove him incorrect.

Which does not make them any less of a quotemine, as he points out himself. You do understand what a quotemine is, don't you?

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
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 it works, because we can test it with organisms of known descent.

Once again you fail to prove that which you can't prove. Genetic similarity is evidence for common design.

Nope. For example, thylacines and wolves are very similar in "design", but the evidence shows them to be only distantly related. You've confused analogy and homology again.

A Creator-God could have repeatedly used existing species in situ as the blueprint for constructing more advanced species.

As you just learned, the "blueprints" show common descent, not common design.

Even Stephen Gould admitted that homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry.

Given your history here, we'll want to see a checkable source.

Both Darwinists and design proponents can explain the existence of homologies within their respective frameworks of interpretation.

See above. It won't work for the reason cited.

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

The fossil record completely fails to support the notion of universal common ancestry

If that were true, we wouldn't have all those transitional fossils. Even more compelling, we never see a transitional where the theory says there shouldn't be one.

Have you ever found that line of fossils that connects man and chimp to your alleged common ancestor or are you still searching?

You forgot already? Go back and look at it again. Remember, you were asked to separated the apes from the humans, and you were unable to do it.

“No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way...

And when I offered to show you a chain of fossils that varied less from link to link, than many species vary today, you cut and ran.

Barbarian observes:
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.

Mentioning Huxley and waiving you hands in the air proves nothing my friend.

Noting that Huxley used Owen's own data to show that the brains of humans and chimps are essentially the same in every part, that works very well.

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

But you have presented no evidence per normal and what is 'painful' is watching theistic evolutionists fail in their effort to blend theism with the atheism required by Darwinian evolution.

We've already established that you and Dawkins are on the same side. You even conceded the fact.

 

[zeke]

Whatever degree of superiority you may feel regarding your philosophical expertise, it remains that your choice lacks any evidential basis at all and has no more intrinsic worth than the two speculations I offered you.

What is written in the Bible is hardly speculation my friend. God created in the beginning - that fact remains what it has always been - the truth. Newton would agree...

" The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect; but a being, however perfect, without dominion, cannot be said to be Lord God... And from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being; and, from his other perfections, that he is supreme, or most perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity..." ~ Isaac Newton​

If you can provide anything other than your creation myth that includes "turtles all the way down" to support your version of abiogenesis I will be more than happy to evaluate the evidence you present but you had nothing else in the past and it remains doubtful that you have conjured up anything new.

 

[zeke]

Barbarian observes:
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 it works, because we can test it with organisms of known descent.

Then simply present your evidence that proves man-chimp common ancestry.

Nope. For example, thylacines and wolves are very similar in "design", but the evidence shows them to be only distantly related.

Ditto - you still have not proven man-chimp common ancestry. Why?

Even Stephen Gould admitted that homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry.

Given your history here, we'll want to see a checkable source.

Already provided - see Davis and Kenyon. The truth remains - homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry. If not, why not?

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

And yet you have provided no "numerous transitionals" - why? Are they missing?

And when I offered to show you a chain of fossils that varied less from link to link, than many species vary today, you cut and ran.

You have a poor memory - I asked you to provide a line of fossils from man to your alleged ape-like-man-chimp-guy common ancestor of man and chimp and you took your toys and went home. Have you found that missing line yet?

 

[zeke]

We've already established that you and Dawkins are on the same side. You even conceded the fact.

You remain confused - you are the theistic evolutionist that has failed to blend your version of theism with the atheism required by Darwinian evolution. How do you work that magic?

 

[lordkalvan]

What is written in the Bible is hardly speculation my friend. God created in the beginning - that fact remains what it has always been - the truth.

And you, my friend, have failed to establish that what you wish to draw from the Bible is indeed the truth and does not amount to speculation.

Newton would agree...

" The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect; but a being, however perfect, without dominion, cannot be said to be Lord God... And from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being; and, from his other perfections, that he is supreme, or most perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity..." ~ Isaac Newton​

Newton was also an enthusiastic alchemist. Would you also quote him in authority to support an argument concerning the transmutation of base metals into gold? If not, why should I endow your argument from authority with any more merit than I would endow it in this case?

If you can provide anything other than your creation myth that includes "turtles all the way down" to support your version of abiogenesis I will be more than happy to evaluate the evidence you present but you had nothing else in the past and it remains doubtful that you have conjured up anything new.

Clearly you misunderstand what I was trying to convey with the example of 'turtles all the way down', which was to show that you were offering us a false dilemma, either/or fallacy in your choices for creation. I do not have a creation myth, I simply point out that you have failed to demonstrate the validity of your own, which amounts to simply denying a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life and being unwilling to explain why you wish to limit the power of your version of God to being unable to use naturalistic processes even if the initial act of creating the Universe was divinely supernatural.

 

[lordkalvan]

Then simply present your evidence that proves man-chimp common ancestry.

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?

Ditto - you still have not proven man-chimp common ancestry. Why?

He has, however, provided ample evidence you have been unable to address.

Already provided - see Davis and Kenyon.

Simply untrue. Your source does not provide evidence that Gould says what he is alleged to have said. Your repeated refusal to acknowledge this and continued citation of this dubious reference borders on the dishonest.

The truth remains - homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry. If not, why not?

Despite being requested to do so many times, you have quite failed to demonstrate the alleged truth of your assertion that homology supports both common design and common descent. Can you do so now?

And yet you have provided no "numerous transitionals" - why? Are they missing?

Yes, he has; your memory is failing you.

You have a poor memory - I asked you to provide a line of fossils from man to your alleged ape-like-man-chimp-guy common ancestor of man and chimp and you took your toys and went home. Have you found that missing line yet?

Again, I think it is your memory that is at fault here.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian obesrves:
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.

Once again you fail to prove that which you can't prove. Genetic similarity is evidence for common design.

Nope. If that were true, analogous structures would be genetically identical. But that's not what we see. There's no point in denying it. The same method can be checked, using organisms of known descent, and they confirm it.

A Creator-God could have repeatedly used existing species in situ as the blueprint for constructing more advanced species.

The only problem is, there's no evidence for that. Homologous features are genetically alike, and similar structures are genetically different. Want to see some examples?

Even Stephen Gould admitted that homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry.

I notice you can't seem to actually find the quote though. So for now, that's off the table.

Barbarian observes:
Second, the fossil record shows numerous transitionals between humans and other primates. Not only do we see transitionals where the theory predicted them to be, we never find them where the theory says they shouldn't be. This is powerful evidence for the theory. Even hard-core creationists like Phillip Johnson, for example, admit that much.

The fossil record completely fails to support the notion of universal common ancestry as you well know. Have you ever found that line of fossils that connects man and chimp to your alleged common ancestor or are you still searching?

I presented you with an assortment of skulls from hominins and invited you to pick the apes from the humans. You cut and ran. If you think you can do it now, I can show you again.

Barbarian continues:
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.

Mentioning Huxley and waiving you hands in the air proves nothing my friend.

Citing Huxley's evidence, however, again verifies the fact of evolution. And now you have nothing left but denial.

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

But you have presented no evidence per normal

Yeah, like that. Do you think people don't notice?

 

[zeke]

And you, my friend, have failed to establish that what you wish to draw from the Bible is indeed the truth and does not amount to speculation.

The biblical revelation is what it is - God's revelation to man. You have yet to impeach His word. Are you claiming you can do that? Is that why you spend so much time on a Christian forum?

Newton was also an enthusiastic alchemist. Would you also quote him in authority to support an argument concerning the transmutation of base metals into gold? If not, why should I endow your argument from authority with any more merit than I would endow it in this case?

Then you do admit that Newton, arguable the most influential scientist of all time believed that God created the universe? Was he a reputable scientist - in your estimation?

Clearly you misunderstand what I was trying to convey with the example of 'turtles all the way down', which was to show that you were offering us a false dilemma, either/or fallacy in your choices for creation

No misunderstanding at all. I presented Wald's idea that there are only two choices regarding life on this planet – special creation via God or life coming from non-life via random chance (an absurdity). You have only presented “turtles all the way down" which is meaningless. Do you have evidence that life came from non-life via random chance or do you simply 'believe' by faith that it did because you don't like the alternative? Be honest.

I do not have a creation myth...

LOL - oh, but you do have a creation myth my friend and it cannot be supported by the scientific method. It remains what it has always been – a notion based on faith. Like it or not you are a man of great faith.

 

[zeke]

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

Talk is cheap - where are these "numerous transitionals" you boast about? Please - no dead-end ape lines.

 

[lordkalvan]

The biblical revelation is what it is - God's revelation to man. You have yet to impeach His word. Are you claiming you can do that? Is that why you spend so much time on a Christian forum?

You are entitled to your opinion, but your opinion is not evidential

Then you do admit that Newton, arguable the most influential scientist of all time believed that God created the universe? Was he a reputable scientist - in your estimation?

Your opinion as to Newton's status is irrelevant, as is his opinion as to the role of God offered in evidence of God's existence and role in creation.

No misunderstanding at all. I presented Wald's idea that there are only two choices regarding life on this planet – special creation via God or life coming from non-life via random chance (an absurdity). You have only presented “turtles all the way down" which is meaningless. Do you have evidence that life came from non-life via random chance or do you simply 'believe' by faith that it did because you don't like the alternative? Be honest.

Continuing to offer your false dilemma, either/or fallacy has no more evidential merit Han it did the first time round.

LOL - oh, but you do have a creation myth my friend and it cannot be supported by the scientific method. It remains what it has always been – a notion based on faith. Like it or not you are a man of great faith.

Again, your opinions and assertions to this effect are not evidential. Incidentally, how are you getting on with finding the actual evidence to support your various claims?