Evidence for Creationism and Against Evolution

[Rían]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
once again my dozens of examples aren’t good enough for RÃ*an… *sniff*

If I agreed with them, IRex, they would be "good enough" for me - but I just don't agree with them, and I'm trying to explain why.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
Ok lets preface this sillyness with some scientific definitions of EVOLUTION (since apparently we like to play the “just give me definitions. Don’t want to hear any common sense� game here. Which is completely unnecessary but nevermind…

I hope you posted this because you were in a bad temper or something I DON'T like to play games , and I AM using my common sense. And my common sense says that intelligently directed breeding with goals in mind is NOT by any means the definition of natural selection that I see in the link I gave, or any other definition I've seen, for that matter. But I'll check out your links tomorrow.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
IREX -

I'm very sorry that you seem to have been offended by my posts - I meant no offence at all.

I am using my common sense, and I only resorted to definitions because we seem to disagree at the definition level of things. I am not nitpicking at all, I"m just trying to back up and find some common ground that we agree on that we can build from, because we seem to be just not understanding each other at all, and we seem to be using words that mean one thing to you and another to me, and people can't have conversations that make sense if that is the case.

I'll have to answer your posts in detail tomorrow, because I"m heading off to bed now. I hope you will believe me that I meant no offense, and that I am using my common sense and sincerely thinking, and I'm not trying to "test" you. I just strongly disagree with you, and I'm trying to explain why, and why I disagree with your analogies. I'm not offended that you don't like my analogies, please don't be offended if I don't like yours - I just really think that they are inappropriate analogies. Perhaps we should drop it at this point, I'm not sure...

Oh RÃ*an Im not offended. Just a little annoyed by yer approach because to me this is elementary stuff and when you start doing that legal definition thing and that I don’t care what you say show me sources thing it just makes me shake my head (which comes out in my posts as smart alicky impatience sometimes…). When I argue with creationists about this kind of thing their approach is often not lets think and learn but how can we refute what he said so that all is not lost! It becomes a war of semantics and ignoring the big picture and that gets a little old after a while. Everything we talked about up there could really be boiled down to a few sentences really. Don’t you think?

· Evolution is change.
· It is irrelevant if such change takes place because of the direct (or indirect) influence of humans or ANY living catalyst species (a garden fussed over by a human is STILL an environment and is STILL under the same rules as any other niche. Its not some static artificial dead zone where the rules of life suddenly don’t apply).
· The mechanism for evolution proven by the corn example is the SAME mechanism used in ALL cases of evolution. When a different kind of evolution happens Ill be the first to let you know.
· If you put enough little steps together (the avalanche thing) then in the end the change that occurs is colossal.

So ok maybe just ignore all that other stuff I wrote (im wordy I know ) and just focus on those few things. And ill try not to get pissy… you always make me feel guilty when you do that why are you mad at me sad face thing.

[Rían]

Oh God, I wish we could all get together and talk and not have to use these stupid keyboards!!!! I wish we could see each other's faces and hear each other's voices

Rats. Haven't we discovered a millionaire Entmooter yet who will pay to get us all together at a nice resort so we could talk?

I think the thing causing the trouble between you and me in this example is that I think that there are PARTIAL truths involved and EXTRAPOLATIONS involved. I think a large amount of what you're saying is absolutely right, but the error comes with saying the extrapolation is right; or that if you have condition "A" but NOT condition "B" then condition "C" is right anyway, when by definition "A" AND "B" are required for "C" to be true.

Those are the best types of lies, too, BTW - those that contain some truth. (NOTE - I'm NOT saying you're lying or evolutionists are lying - I'm absolutely NOT saying this! What I'm saying is that we're possibly having this trouble because what YOU see as ALL truth, I see as MOSTLY truth but FALSE in a CRITICAL area, which makes the whole thing not true.) Does that make sense? We don't have to agree, but does that make sense?

So I'll try to express my thoughts on your 4 points, then I think I'll post my summary essay this afternoon if I can get some time, then close down. My soul is getting weary of the disagreement (even the good-natured disagreement, which the VAST majoritiy is) and the emotions from the misunderstandings that come with this difficult typing-type communication.

[Rían]

From Insidious Rex's post

1: Evolution is change.
2: It is irrelevant if such change takes place because of the direct (or indirect) influence of humans or ANY living catalyst species (a garden fussed over by a human is STILL an environment and is STILL under the same rules as any other niche. Its not some static artificial dead zone where the rules of life suddenly don’t apply).
3: The mechanism for evolution proven by the corn example is the SAME mechanism used in ALL cases of evolution. When a different kind of evolution happens Ill be the first to let you know.
4: If you put enough little steps together (the avalanche thing) then in the end the change that occurs is colossal.

1. Yes, it is. (the part I agree with). But for a scientific theory, one must DEFINE the TYPE of change predicted, or I will continue to claim that my body will change into a Corvette one of these years, and nothing you say can prevent me from claiming that as a valid evolutionary change.

I agree with MANY of the types of changes the theory predicts. But I disagree on the type of change called macroevolution, which is that changes may occur that will eventually cause a one-celled thingy to change into a man and every other type of organism we see today. This is the only part I disagree with, but it is a CRITICAL part of evolutionism. (or you can say several single-celled thingies, whatever - but the gist is single-celled thingy to man is a type of change that evolutionism claims CAN and DOES happen, and I disagree with this based on lack of evidence of this level of change - there is only evidence for lower level changes where type remains type.)

2. I agree, but only insofar as there is no GOAL involved, because evolutionary natural selection is by every definition I've ever seen a GOAL-less filter. It only allows thru the organisms that are most adapted to survive, and if mutation, even mutation caused by humans or some other agent, makes an organism better suited to its environment, then it will survive over the less-suited organism (if you can get enough of them bred with the mutation to build up a population big enough to survive). In your example, the Indians were trying to enhance certain traits in the stalky-grass, and they did NOT allow natural selection to take its course - they took postive steps to breed and make intermediate forms live, when they most probably would not have survived without this postive interference.

3. I COMPLETELY agree that the mechanism - mutation - is the same!! I agree!! But mutation is not the only mechanism in evolutionism - it is firmly wedded with natural selection - it cannot be divorced from it. The raw material for the natural selection filter to operate on is provided by mutation. And yes, there was mutation in the corn example, but there was NOT natural selection. Evolution requires BOTH to take place. So this area is where I agree with your statement, but I say that the statement that by definition is required to be with it is missing.

4. Yes, I agree that a bunch of little steps can add up to miles and miles of distance. I agree! - unless there is an insurmountable barrier placed in the path. And there appears that there IS just such a barrier, because we observe this barrier over and over and OVER again in ALL breeding that's EVER taken place - change hits limits. And the limit appears to be that types remain types - flies remain flies, tho they may have crinkled or elongated wings; horses remain horses, tho we have everything from cute Shetland ponies to gorgeous Arabian stallions. So your idea is an extrapolation (i.e., NOT based on observation), and the extrapolation seems to be invalid based on all breeding observations ever made.


-----------


Anyway, these are my sincere and common-sense objections, made with the friendliest feelings towards you (it doesn't affect our friendship that we have sincere disagreements in this area). As you can see, I agree with you in many ways, but not in what I perceive to be the required CRITICAL areas. Evolutionism is a fine theory, but it just has too many extrapolations, based on lack of evidence, in critical areas, for me to consider it proven. I hope good evolutionist scientists will continue their research in this area.

[Lizra]

Regarding number four, I think the problem is in the "observation". The amount of time required for such gradual changes make "observation" difficult, to say the least.

I don't agree with you about the one celled thingy. I think one celled thingy to complex creatures is more likely than the invisible magic man in the sky. I suppose it's a matter of choice of which crazy thing to side with. Of course...we don't know...but I prefer the cellular thingy theory!

[HOBBIT]

What about lack of evidence in Creation, Rian? Lizra is right. You have to take tiny leaps of faith believing the scientists, but it is a lot better than believeing that some all powerful being created everything that's what my common sense dictates.

it is all well and good that we are discussing evolution, but this is the "creation science" topic. Defenitions should be posted of that, not evolution.

I see how it al branched off, but it seems like a moot point.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
... (NOTE - I'm NOT saying you're lying or evolutionists are lying - I'm absolutely NOT saying this! What I'm saying is that we're possibly having this trouble because what YOU see as ALL truth, I see as MOSTLY truth but FALSE in a CRITICAL area, which makes the whole thing not true.) Does that make sense? We don't have to agree, but does that make sense?....

Just like what I said about all religions being false. But you disagreed with that point. Why now is it ok for evolution?

[Rían]

Originally posted by Ruinel
Just like what I said about all religions being false. But you disagreed with that point. Why now is it ok for evolution?

I'm not quite sure what you mean, Ruinel - you're not talking about the "if all religions are different, therefore all are false" thing, are you?

[Rían]

Originally posted by HOBBIT
What about lack of evidence in Creation, Rian?

I should be able to post my 11-page top-level creationism essay tomorrow, or Friday at the latest. Admin question for you - there isn't a limit for number of consecutive posts, is there? The 90-sec post limit will be really irritating to deal with, tho.

I see how it al branched off, but it seems like a moot point.

An ENT-moot point? (sorry, that word just caught my eye!)

[Rían]

Originally posted by Lizra
Regarding number four, I think the problem is in the "observation". The amount of time required for such gradual changes make "observation" difficult, to say the least.

I agree with you completely, Lizra! Yay! That's so nice to say on this thread!

But here is an important point about that whole issue: Science is not like a polite science teacher who might accept an explanatory note from home. Science bases acceptance of a hypothesis on evidence. A hypothesis is not "let off the hook" just because the evidence is difficult to gather.

For example (to put this in a funny light) - say a student named Macroevolution Hypothesis brings in the following note from his mom, Ms. EntireTheoryOfEvolution, to his Science Teacher, Mr. Science:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr. Science: Would you please excuse little Macroevolution Hypothesis from bringing in any concrete evidence that he is indeed a scientific fact, because as you can see, these types of observations would take a huge amount of time and it is simply not feasible. Would you please just promote him to a Fact anyway? Thank you.
(signed) Ms. EntireTheoryOfEvolution
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now the right and proper response for Mr. Science would be the following:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Ms. EntireTheoryOfEvolution: I entirely understand your eminently reasonable point about the necessary evidence requiring so much time that it is unreasonable to expect to see it. That makes perfect sense to me, and I understand and sympathize with your frustration about not being able to gather it. However, the rules of science clearly state that regardless of how strongly we think something may be a fact, we cannot declare it to be a fact until we can actually observe substantial, consistent and repeatable supporting evidence. So although I understand and sympathize with your very reasonable point, I am unable to promote little Macroevolution Hypothesis to be Macroevolution Fact. Sincerely yours,
(signed) Mr. Science
ps - would you please ask little Macroevolution to refrain from shooting spitwads at little Miss Creationism? Thank you.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I suppose it's a matter of choice of which crazy thing to side with.

I agree yet again and I'll be interested to see your response to my essay, if you decide to wade through it!

[Lizra]

I'll "wade through it" if the writing style is conducive to continued reading! (I'm a wimp! ) Meaning....if it is in plain english, sticks to the point, and makes common sense, I look forward to reading it! Regarding your other point...I think you're splitting hairs ...whatever...I'm still good with my original statement!

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
ok so when do i get my turn

*exhausted*

I've taken a vow to hold off replying to Rian until we get the mega-post; don't want to distract her.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
… you always make me feel guilty when you do that why are you mad at me sad face thing.

That's because in spite of your formidable-sounding user name, you have a kind heart (I won't tell anyone else if you don't want me to ... )

[Rían]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
I've taken a vow to hold off replying to Rian until we get the mega-post; don't want to distract her.

*is now tempted to make some outrageously wrong statements before posting the mega-post to see if GM can hold to his vow .... *

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
That's because in spite of your formidable-sounding user name, you have a kind heart (I won't tell anyone else if you don't want me to ... )

shush! youll ruin my image.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
For example (to put this in a funny light) - say a student named Macroevolution Hypothesis brings in the following note from his mom, Ms. EntireTheoryOfEvolution, to his Science Teacher, Mr. Science:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr. Science: Would you please excuse little Macroevolution Hypothesis from bringing in any concrete evidence that he is indeed a scientific fact, because as you can see, these types of observations would take a huge amount of time and it is simply not feasible. Would you please just promote him to a Fact anyway? Thank you.
(signed) Ms. EntireTheoryOfEvolution
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now the right and proper response for Mr. Science would be the following:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Ms. EntireTheoryOfEvolution: I entirely understand your eminently reasonable point about the necessary evidence requiring so much time that it is unreasonable to expect to see it. That makes perfect sense to me, and I understand and sympathize with your frustration about not being able to gather it. However, the rules of science clearly state that regardless of how strongly we think something may be a fact, we cannot declare it to be a fact until we can actually observe substantial, consistent and repeatable supporting evidence. So although I understand and sympathize with your very reasonable point, I am unable to promote little Macroevolution Hypothesis to be Macroevolution Fact. Sincerely yours,
(signed) Mr. Science
ps - would you please ask little Macroevolution to refrain from shooting spitwads at little Miss Creationism? Thank you.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

actually I think “Mr. Science’s� response should be something along the lines of:

Dear Ms. Evolution . Good to hear from you once again. Hows your husband Gravity doing? Still holding down the fort? You and he have done so much for the Sciences and we all thank you so much. I don’t know where we would be without your rock solid consistency. As for your request regarding your son I must say Im a little confused. First of all we don’t even have a student by the name of “macroevolution� in our science classroom. I mean what kind of a name is that anyway? Is that a religious name? And lets see as I recall correctly Newton and Mendel and Galileo and Capernicus and others have graced these hallowed halls and gone on to big things upon graduating from the testing ground that is science. And of course your dear father Darwin(ism) was one of my best students. And from him we got you of course. And you were a more perfect version of your father and you amazed us all with your accuracy. But your son is just a more modern version of yourself. And believe me every day he gives us evidence of his legitimacy as fact. So no excuse is necessary. The evidence he sites is nearly endless. In fact sometimes its all I can do to get him to shut up. He knows so much about things like genetics and fossils and anatomy that we have long since regarded him as as much of a fact as his cousin sun-centered-solar-system. So have no fear Ms. Evolution, your son is doing just fine in this rigorous Science class. And as for little Ms. Creationism well it was clear that she couldn’t stay in science long ago when she showed us she was not willing to participate or even cooperate with myself or the rest of the students. Instead of listening and trying to understand the course material she would constantly stand on the lab tables and throw bibles at the other students. She obviously had no interest in actually sitting down and trying to learn real science. So they have relegated her to the religion class where we think she fits in much better but for some reason she is still insisting she has a place in the science class room. Go figure.

Sincerely yours,
Mr. Science

[HOBBIT]

That was great IR :P

[Lizra]

Heh! Go figure!

[Rían]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
... First of all we don’t even have a student by the name of “macroevolution� in our science classroom. ...

Glad to see you agree with me that there is no such thing as macroevolution in science!