The Adamic Creation

[sSsflamesSs]

Why do I get the feeling that this thread is going to go on and on and on and on and on and on for pages of repetition by both opposing parties?

[sSsflamesSs]

I have one more thing to add to this thread.

...evolution and God are not mutually exclusive...

Precisely.

[Telos]

"Why do I get the feeling that this thread is going to go on and on and on and on and on and on for pages of repetition by both opposing parties?"

What do you mean? I've provided elaboration on my points--all that Anonymouse has done is a bunch of hand-waving.

[sSsflamesSs]

"Why do I get the feeling that this thread is going to go on and on and on and on and on and on for pages of repetition by both opposing parties?"

What do you mean? I've provided elaboration on my points--all that Anonymouse has done is a bunch of hand-waving.

You said that you read the thread on evolution and religion. That should clear up any fuzziness in my claim.

P.S. I stopped reading after your sentence referring to the evolution and religion thread. So if you elaborated more on your points, I wouldn't know.

[Telos]

Ah, I see what you're saying--I misinterpreted what you wrote initially.

[Anonymouse]

“The fossil record doesn't show anything other than what the imaginations of evolutionists say it does.”

Alright, if the fossil record isn’t enough, what do you make of the molecular evidence? I presume you have read several scientific papers published in journals before you reached your conclusion, right?

“It used to be believed that there was a gradual change in evolution, but since intermediate forms could not be supported, the theory of punctuated equilibria had to be brought up as a savior for evolution.”

Actually, the idea of punctuated equilibrium can be found in the book Origin of Species. Granted, it’s not called “punctuated equilibrium,” but the idea is there. The idea was not new—Gould simply over-hyped it and treated it as “new.” Surely you’ve read Origin of Species?

“Now as far as mutations and adaptations are concerned they are all within species.”

Are you saying that speciation does not occur? I’ve got several examples, if you’d like to hear them.

“Micro and macro evolution are quite different.”

Nope, actually they’re not. They’re the exact same process, except over different time scales. Drawing a distinction is actually unnecessary. It’s like drawing a distinction between micro-walking (walking to the end of the block) and macro-walking (walking all the way into the next city)--it’s still the same process: walking. Nice try though.

“While we may observe changes on a micro level, to go beyond that and project it into a macro level is beyond us.”

Great—now all you have to do is propose the mechanism that prevents microevolution from becoming macroevolution and you’ve got a Nobel Prize on your hands. Otherwise, what you’ve got on your hands is a baseless assertion.

“I am glad that you have so religiously followed my discussions with loser in which of course you would believe I lost.”

I know you lost because, to put it simply: you did.

“As a believer in evolution no one would admit or believe that I somehow won, would they?”

I would admit that you had won—if you had actually won.

“Ideological prisms are not held by reason but by appeal to emotions.”

Objectively, the defense of your view was rather poor. What are you talking about?

“One thing I have not done is argue for God or the Bible.”

Nope, you certainly haven’t.

“I have vaguely referred to creation but I have nonetheless left it a mystery.”

That’s because it is a mystery—creationism is pure crap. No one has yet produced a scientific theory of creation. If you’ve got one, I’d like to hear it.

“You on the other hand assume and go off on a rant about God and the Bible.”

The topic of this thread is Christianity, is it not? What exactly is your gripe with a discussion of the Bible and God?

“I have no point to make there.”

Or anywhere, for that matter.

“In fact I have never even used the Bible in my arguments even in the thread with loser which you supposedly claimed to have read and now you call me on "literal interpretation"?”

Alright. Do you interpret it literally?

“You need to stop making things up.”

Do you interpret Genesis literally?

“However, as much as atheists and evolutionists and others like to bash Christians and Bible Thumpers for somehow claiming to know the truth, evolutionists themselves get out of hand in this regard.”

Sure, when the opposition refutes you, of course, suddenly, they’re “out of hand.” Grow up.

“Hypocrisy knows no bounds, but unless it is on the other side one rarely checks thyself.”

Who’s being a hypocrite?

“As far as your statement about me offering "scientific challenges" to evolution, that is misleading.”

No, it isn’t.

“It is not my job to offer "scientific challenges" but rather to point out the lack of it. The burden is on those who assert the fact therefore it is on them to offer those. In my position one can only critique and poke holes and if you follow the good advise of Socrates you would do the same instead of clinging to this "Evolution is fact" dogma.”

You are sadly mistaken. Take a refresher course on the philosophy of logic. You’re asserting the existence of some barrier between microevolution and macroevolution. Well, produce the hypothesis! If you weren’t, then you’d agree that macroevolution occurs. What is this barrier? The burden is on you to demonstrate that this barrier exists. If I asserted that flying pink unicorns existed in space, I wouldn’t expect you to demonstrate that they don’t exist. It would be up to me to demonstrate that they do exist. Understand how this works?

“Methodogical naturalism, evolution or the scientific revolution - call it what you will.”

Whoa. Seriously consider taking that course on the philosophy of logic. Are you familiar with the fallacy of equivocation?

“It is a religion if looked at from a certain perspective.”

What perspective? The perspective of utter ignorance?

“Certainly it is not a religion in the traditional sense but it is a metaphysical assumption no matter how much you can claim to deny.”

Repetition does not make you right. Get over it.

“The scientific method must first be held to be true before it is used as a tool, in other words the root of it all is belief.”

This is a logical fallacy: once again, you’re equivocating on the concepts of “trust” and “faith.” You’re conflating trust with faith. People tend to put their trust in science, because it doesn’t tend to let you down. They put their trust in it because of evidence that it works. You put your faith in something despite the lack of evidence.

“I know this quakes the prisons we choose to live in, and is discomforting to the "science is fact" religionists who like to have some concreteness and stability, but it is wasted.”

Empty rhetoric whilst caricaturing scientists? Your maturity has reached a whole new level.

You know, you have all these issues with epistemology when discussing evolutionary theory. I’m sure you wouldn’t have these issues when thinking about, let’s say, the germ theory of disease, because surely you take medicine when you get sick, right? Surely you’ve been vaccinated? Do you believe that the germ theory of disease is not indicative of reality? It’s based on the same principles of methodological naturalism. Curious business, that.

Interesting that you chose to go to the ad hominem road instead of the actual discussion. Always the last refuge of the pointless.

[Telos]

This is not a valid response.

What ad hominem attacks? I'm attacking your ideas, not you. Sure, I pointed out your childish behavior, but I was just bringing it to your attention. You need thicker skin. This is hilarious, you accused me of holding steadfastedly onto my ideas, without consideration of any others. I view attacks on my ideas as nothing more than attacks on my ideas. My condolences that you are are so blindly attached to your views that an attack on them is an attack on you.

This is also red-herring on your part. Are you going to propose a mechanism that prevents macroevolution, or not?

If not, we can move on, evolution having triumphed over your nonsensical drivel.

Unless your next response is an actual, scientific challenge to evolution in the form of a proposed mechanism that prevents microevolution from becoming macroevolution, don't post in response to me. Please don't waste anyone's time. If such a hypothesis is not posted, I'm going to assume you were unable to defend your position. Ergo, the debate will be over.

[Anonymouse]

This is not a valid response.

What ad hominem attacks? I'm attacking your ideas, not you. Sure, I pointed out your childish behavior, but I was just bringing it to your attention. You need thicker skin. This is hilarious, you accused me of holding steadfastedly onto my ideas, without consideration of any others. I view attacks on my ideas as nothing more than attacks on my ideas. My condolences that you are are so blindly attached to your views that an attack on them is an attack on you.

This is also red-herring on your part. Are you going to propose a mechanism that prevents macroevolution, or not?

If not, we can move on, evolution having triumphed over your nonsensical drivel.

Unless your next response is an actual, scientific challenge to evolution in the form of a proposed mechanism that prevents microevolution from becoming macroevolution, don't post in response to me. Please don't waste anyone's time. If such a hypothesis is not posted, I'm going to assume you were unable to defend your position. Ergo, the debate will be over.

Well, here is clearly someone who has mastered the art of fusing scientific language and creating an aura of substance to thus somehow come out with a full proof argument. In order not to come off as pretensious lets keep this simple and basic, shall we? I know you are a person in scientific endeavors thus my puny mind can only comprehend basic scientific language.

In the theory there are many claims some founded some unfounded. Those sensible should dispute the ones that are unfounded. Your response that unless I offer a 'scientific challenge' your view needs not to be bothered with. For how else can a theory be falsified? Somehow I have to present an alternative model so that this one is untrue? Au contraire, a lack of of evidence is exactly what I am poking at. It would be a fallacious argument for me to offer evidence in order to disprove evidence. Rather it is the lack of evidence which you have called 'overwhelming' which sensible minds rely on. It has assumed the role of a religion as you have so eloquently proven in this little discussion of the lengths people will go to defend their cherished ideas, because ideas are precious. Whether one is an evolutionist, a creationist, a scientist, etc., before any of that one is a social being exposed social forces that form and chisel ones views and life history and ultimately ones ideas, and life is an individual process to dismay.

Evolution is simply a theory asserted of how we supposedly developed. Relying on the fossil record blindly is not tactful move, as people from Darwin to Dawkins have stated it is imperfect. As far as relying on molecular evidence, that is also misleading as the methods for classification are controversial and misleading. For every argument, there is a counter-argument. The endpoint is belief. That is my only point now, that was my only point then. You seem to misunderstand this particular part. I don't think you will respond, at least if you stick to your word, which evolutionists rarely do.

[Telos]

"I don't think you will respond, at least if you stick to your word, which evolutionists rarely do."

Nice try, but I never said I would not respond. I told you not to respond, unless you were going to give me what I asked for.

"Your response that unless I offer a 'scientific challenge' your view needs not to be bothered with. For how else can a theory be falsified? Somehow I have to present an alternative model so that this one is untrue? Au contraire, a lack of of evidence is exactly what I am poking at. It would be a fallacious argument for me to offer evidence in order to disprove evidence."

No, you misunderstand. You are not presenting an alternative model. You said macroevolution cannot occur. In order to say that, you must have a reason for believing that there is a barrier that prevents microevolution from becoming macroevolution. You need to propose what this mechanism that prevents macroevolution is. Unless you present it, you've got nothing my friend.

In any case, I've gotten what I needed out of this thread. I'm writing a paper on the implications of scientific ignorance for society--thank you for all your help, you've brought new ideas I can expound on that I hadn't thought of before.

[Anonymouse]

"I don't think you will respond, at least if you stick to your word, which evolutionists rarely do."

Nice try, but I never said I would not respond. I told you not to respond, unless you were going to give me what I asked for.

"Your response that unless I offer a 'scientific challenge' your view needs not to be bothered with. For how else can a theory be falsified? Somehow I have to present an alternative model so that this one is untrue? Au contraire, a lack of of evidence is exactly what I am poking at. It would be a fallacious argument for me to offer evidence in order to disprove evidence."

No, you misunderstand. You are not presenting an alternative model. You said macroevolution cannot occur. In order to say that, you must have a reason for believing that there is a barrier that prevents microevolution from becoming macroevolution. You need to propose what this mechanism that prevents macroevolution is. Unless you present it, you've got nothing my friend.

In any case, I've gotten what I needed out of this thread. I'm writing a paper on the implications of scientific ignorance for society--thank you for all your help, you've brought new ideas I can expound on that I hadn't thought of before.

I do not misunderstand for my aim was precisely not to present an alternative model, merely point out that the one you are desperately defending is flawed, as with all ideas. No ideas are immune from criticism, for like I said, every argument has a counter-argument. Such is the nature of ideas and conflicting wills.

The reason I stated you would not respond is because you assumed this is a waste of "our time" whoever "our" is, which I'm guessing is everyone else who is reading this which you have somehow transformed into your mythical allies by the assumption that they will favor your argument since it is so self-evident, like evolution, right? Thus by responding you are only contradicting yourself. You most likely think that this is well worth your time simply by the fact that you continue to respond and in fact will continue to do so.

The point where microevolution becomes macroevolution is exactly where things are blurred for what is stated is simply assumed. Variation, adaptation and recombination of existing traits is simply variation, adaptation, and recombination of existing traits. We witness it in fruit flies, in bacteria, etc. Since you're so versed in science and evolution in particular I am sure none of this is new. Nothing happens other than within species variation. I am simply amazed at the amount faith it takes to leap from this to the assumption that these lead to changes on a macro scale. Has this ever been proven? Where? What empirical evidence suggests this? Science is about how the world works and how we observe this world. This isn't about observation it is about imagination since humans are such the imaginitive beings. No matter how plausible it might be, it may be false. In fact, according to Karl Popper in order to be classified as a scientific theory all theories must be falsifiable. Is evolution somehow beyond this point and thus cannot be falsified? Your position all points to this immutable status which evolution has reached that it is immune from criticism and those that do are somehow ignorant. It is the most primitive form of defending the prism of our minds. Everyone that is human has been guilty of this tactic at one time or another.