Evidence for Creationism and Against Evolution

[Blackheart]

"At last... something we agree on"

Well... I'd like to think that a skeptic should resist the idea that something is "rock solid reality" and can never be overturned. If I have a life philosophy it's skepticism, and of course that's exactly when I become boring and stuffy...

"Just read the YEC ideas on the age of the earth. It can be done. Why species aren't being virally saved from extinction (or any of the other mechanisms). The "what if" tag asks suspension of disbelief as a means of avoiding too much analysis. What if the virii just showed up with the perfect DNA and a custom failsafe delivery system? What if pink unicorns stampeded through times square? I guess we would have to think about reality a bit differently... Would the new species be "evolved"? Of course."

Err... what's this YEC? young earth corps?

As for why species aren't saved form extinction virally... one would assume that only pertinant parts of their code are. Whatever parts of their code the viral carriers found "important"...

The "failsafe" delivery system I addressed in the last post (the entire genome is "of course" virally constructed, and therefore suited to insertion by virus and primed for the actual code)

New "viral species" wouldn't actually be "evolved" if they were only there as a "placeholder" while whatever code was being manipulated.... Once the code was sufficiently changed" it would be transmitted again....

oooh... actually theres something that would require a rethinking of mechanism. IF, once the code was succesfully transmited to the next "succesor" species, the preceding placeholder was eliminated by a "kill command" transmitted by the same viral agents....

Such a system doesn't actually demand a consciousness, just cause and effect... But it does presume an awful lot of communication (communication in the stict sense of information propigation, without the need of intent) by some agency, either viral or some other method.

Sure it's unlikely as hell, but it's a hypothetical situation based on the idea that actual evidence "could" be discovered to support it. All you need to disprove the statement that "nothing could ever overturn the ToE, it's rock solid reality" is a single possible case. Whether it's ever discovered or not is of course unknown, but not neccesarily unknowable.

[Cirdan]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Blackheart
[B]It does happen however. Speciation is a fuzzy point. There are areas of overlap.

Novioable offspring such as mules prove that there is a fuzzy point approaching a point of no return.

Still....In order to get around it you pretty much have to set a limit in time. Did speciation occur? At what point did they become walking fish instead of fish? Was there actually a new species, or was it just the same one that changed over time? did the entire species change at once, or was there a branching?

The lobe finned fish like the coelacanth appear to have branched off from a common ancestor from the line that produced the tetrapods. The fossil record is very good in this respect.

Is there enough evidence to say that microevolution alone accounted for the change, or were there large jumps in the change?

I don't really think there is a different mechanism. To me microevolution is evolution and macro-evolution is evolution that just happens to result in speciation. PE attempts to address periods of "big jumps" but I think there may be something more. Many periods of rapid speciation follow mass extinctions. If the few surviving species are suddenly free to rapidly spread then extremely large and eventually isolated populations would change more rapidly. At some point subspeices developing different adaptations could reconnect, multiplying the effect of mutagenesis.

Sure there's no current evidence, but a (hypothetical) viral agent would likely indicate that there were large changes. And if it was somehow (unlikely I admit) suported that the virus was the major agent in such changes, why would you need micro evolution as a factor in speciation?

It all still just evolution. "Need" is not an issue, it just is.

Well, The only way I see it happeneing is if the entire DNA code were actually viral in it's makeup. At which point the package being inserted by the virus shouldn't actually be a problem, since it is in fact, merely a travelling peice of code.... And it needn't actually be that difficult. It might actually be modifications to the code that don't affect the phenotype directly, but affect some other nebulous unknown function, such as programing new viral carriers for other peices of code....

So random bits of code produce functional change? This is mutagenesis again. Since virii are known to insert random useless code the chance exists that the code could be useful ( monkey + typewriter). I don't see this as not being evolution.

Only if you posit that the virii are actually concerned with anything other than the existence of replication centers...

Hmmm I think I was mulling over "directedness" when I wrote part of that response. The term implies that speciation is a goal, not that the code inserted is random and then just happens to work. THe initial hypothesis was that the specific change was caused as a specific response to a specific environmental selection vector. That specificity implies intent or goal oriented action. Otherwise it is a happy random coincidence with a longer and more complicated causal chain than others.

Sure it's unlikely, but the original point was that there was nothing that could possibly ever overturn the theory of evolution. It's awfully hard to prove a negative, but all one needs to come up with is one possible case to point out that such an attitude is rather... obstinate.

I think that it is a requirement that it is falsifiable. I think the original opinion was about probablilty but couched in the language of absolutes. Certainly even the idea that god is working the the controls behind the curtain is not disprovable. The next ten years should answer many questions (and create even more new ones), but the past is doomed to a fixed level of uncertainly that must allow for speculation.

... I find the idea of changes that increase the capacity for replication rather central to the idea of evolution....

There are millions of changes not related to replication that improve viability. Replication is a popular one. Capacity is only one strategy for reproductive success (improved viability, longer gestation, parental protection instincts, etc).

For a long time the idea of random non directed change was dogmatic to evolution. While I find the definition rather broad, it's nice to see that some of those attitudes are changing. Still I think it could be narrowed a bit.

Adding the "Dawinian" evolution tag adds the requirement of selection and specieation; limiting the definition.

[Cirdan]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Blackheart
[B]Well... I'd like to think that a skeptic should resist the idea that something is "rock solid reality" and can never be overturned. If I have a life philosophy it's skepticism, and of course that's exactly when I become boring and stuffy...
[quote][b]
I'm not sure that skepticism is always a good approach (insert tongue into cheek here).

I'm not sure when I became boring and stuffy but it wasn't just recently.

Err... what's this YEC? young earth corps?

close... young earth creationism

All interesting stuff, even if a bit far out. Biology and genetics have definitely supplanted physics (for now) as the bold frontier of science. As for the science fiction idea, I actually think it has potential,. Throw in some espionage, genetic engineering, and conspiracy theory and there just might be a book in there. "Gaiaton"

[Snowdog]

The one thing that always got me about the evolution theorist's argument is the circular reasoning. So much is based on carbon-dating, and there has always been a lack of an objective cross-species specimens found.

As far as creationist theory goes, it is faith-based really.

[Sheeana]

Originally posted by Snowdog
So much is based on carbon-dating, and there has always been a lack of an objective cross-species specimens found.

Um. No it's not. Carbon dating only goes back 60,000 years or so.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Sheeana
Um. No it's not. Carbon dating only goes back 60,000 years or so.

Oh, sure. Start dragging facts into this.

[Sheeana]

Don't encourage me. I'm having WAY too much fun putting my head up my butt.

[Cirdan]

Don't worry about it. I think that activity may be a prerequisite for this discussion.

[Rían]

I think I'll make my farewell post now, because I'm done with this topic (yes, AE, I've finally hit my limit! ) and would like to move on to other things.

I'll let my long post stand on its own, and note again that I'm familiar with many of the arguments against it, as well as the counter-arguments against the arguments against it, and so on and so on. Of the arguments against it that I know of, some appear to have some good points and I hope to look into them more; some ignore the main point entirely and thus do not refute the point; and some try to refute the point with a theoretical answer, which makes it only a theoretical refutation and thus does not prove anything. I think there are many, MANY valid points that remain on the side of creationism.

I've learned many things on this thread, for which I'm grateful. Thanks to everyone that participated in a polite and thoughtful manner .

My final stance on the issue continues to be that (1) there is less concrete evidence for evolutionism than is commonly believed, because of the very nature of what is being studied requires that the scientists make HUGE extrapolations into the past, and extrapolations are unproveable and also highly liable to error, as anyone with a math background knows (IOW, for an extrapolation, there is ONE right answer, and zillions of possible wrong ones); and (2) there is more evidence for creationism than is commonly believed, and the evidence that we can see today - the unextrapolated and actually observable evidence - is a better fit to the creationism model; and (3) there is evidence for both models, but the evidence favors the creationism model.

Now the last few pages have been mostly on the topic of worldwide flood geology, which I have not really studied at all, so I don't wish to address it, because I couldn't do it justice. It should be another thread in itself, I think. So I will just continue to refer people to my long post on the creationism evidence, if they're interested in the subject, and save the flood geology for another day (perhaps a rainy day? ... ) I think there is enough info on the creationism side of thingss to keep people busy, if they want to look into it.

So farewell, fellow Tolkien lovers, and I'll see you around the other threads! You guys can keep it going if you want to, but I'm basically done (unless I see something that really catches my eye and I want to address, but I hope there won't be anything, because I'm really tired of this topic now!)

[Blackheart]

"there is less concrete evidence for evolutionism than is commonly believed"

Err... Evolutionism? There does seem to be however reams of data supporting evolution as the probable cause of species diversity...

"there is more evidence for creationism than is commonly believed, and the evidence that we can see today"

I must say, I find some of the questions interesting, but I can't quite credit them as evidence supporting creationism.

"there is evidence for both models, but the evidence favors the creationism model"

Err. Indeed. I can only say that everyone is entitled to an opinion. Mine is that the evidence to support a creation model is sketchy, flawed, and subjective at best.

I'm just puzzled if this is an objective opinion based purely on evidence, or if you are taking subjective interpretation into account.

[Cirdan]

IT'S ALIVE!!! ALIVE, I TELL YOU!!!

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Cirdan
IT'S ALIVE!!! ALIVE, I TELL YOU!!!

yes and all hail RÃ*an the great and mighty (thread) creator! *bowing down*

but unfortunately I believe she said shes "hit her limit" in this thread so dont know if youll be getting any response from her on those questions above.

[Rían]

I think I'm pretty much done with detailed discussion, but I will answer these two:

Originally posted by Blackheart
Err... Evolutionism?

Yes, I used that phrase on purpose (as opposed to evolution) to put it on the same level as creationISM. They are both models, and both have many areas that are conjecture and/or extrapolation, because they are about things that happened in the past and cannot be tested in a lab today.

I'm just puzzled if this is an objective opinion based purely on evidence, or if you are taking subjective interpretation into account.

I'm evaluating creationism and evolutionism the same way - objectively evaluating evidence where there IS evidence, and evaluating extrapolations/conjecture as well as possible, based on existing evidence, but knowing that they ARE extrapolations and not proven facts and could very well be wrong.

[Sheeana]

Originally posted by Cirdan
IT'S ALIVE!!! ALIVE, I TELL YOU!!!

Quick! PUT IT DOWN YOUR PANTS!

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Sheeana
Quick! PUT IT DOWN YOUR PANTS!

Too Late! It's working it's way up the pant leg.

That reminds me, don't you still have a pair of mine?

[Blackheart]

"Yes, I used that phrase on purpose (as opposed to evolution) to put it on the same level as creationISM."

At that point though... the discussion changes dramatically from one of a discussion of competing theories acout species diversity, to one about the relative merits of two differeing cosmologies.

No, I don't feel like getting into that one either. Magdeburg was a sore trial for me poor soul.

[Lizra]

So we've been trying to argue two arguments with one debate? No wonder this thread is so energy sapping!

[Rían]

Originally posted by Blackheart
At that point though... the discussion changes dramatically from one of a discussion of competing theories acout species diversity, to one about the relative merits of two differeing cosmologies.

I'm glad you see that evolutionism is a cosmology Many people think (incorrectly) that it is a proven scientific fact!

(The above was written as a bit of a leg pull, but really, it's quite true. That's why I prefer the term "model". Now within each model, there are some theories that may be tested scientifically, and there are also some areas that will forever be only educated guesses because they are scientifically untestable.)

[HOBBIT]

That is pretty silly Rian.

Anyway, I've started Bio and already there is much on evolution. Its listed as being one of the 6 major recurring themes in the bio book.

[Lief Erikson]

There were a few key arguments for Creationism I heard brought up in a debate between a famous Christian and a famous Atheist. There were five of them. Let's see if I can remember them all . . .

1. The universe could not have come out of nothing. It had to have come from something. Matter cannot simply "appear," unless it comes from somewhere, or something causes it.
2. The mathematical odds against life originating in the universe are virtually infinite. Only because God exists could life exist.
3. Morality exists. Some things are good, and some things are evil. Therefore God exists.
4. This one is basically the Case for Christ. The physical evidences for Jesus being who he claimed to be are incredibly compelling.
5. Our personal Christian experience.

I think I got all of them right. Number 3, Insidious Rex and I debated for a long time in the "Good and Evil" thread. I have no desire to continue that here. If some other Christian is willing to take it up, I have no problem with that, of course.

Points 3 and 4 I am very capable of discussing (provided I have time this week, of course).

To me, Point 1 seems pretty obvious. The Atheist speaker, if I recall correctly, primarily just said that we can't expect to know that yet. We aren't that far in our knowledge and we might never be, but we can't expect to know things like that.

But things can't come from nothing- not that I know of. Nowhere in our experience is that heard of. Something must have caused things to occur the way they did, in order for them to happen. That is one reason it is my current belief that science must itself accept some kind of eternal existence. Even by science, there has to be a law of some kind that acknowledges that things can last forever, in order for things to exist at all. If things existed with a beginning, then they came from either something or nothing. No material thing that exists now did not have a beginning. Currently scientists believe this to be the Big Bang. But is the Big Bang the beginning of things out of nothing, or out of something? I think there must be something eternal, simply by this reckoning.


Point 2 I leave open.

Unfortunately, all of these points would take a huge amount of time to defend. I guess I very likely won't have the time to defend them all adequately, and many of them have been gone over to some extent at other times in Entmoot.

Point 4 is I think very strong. The mathematical calculations of the odds of Jesus fulfilling the prophesies he did are incredibly vast. The evidences that he was resurrected from the dead are also very powerful. These include the fact that the tomb was empty, and the eyewitness accounts. The apostles died for what they believed, and what they believed they spoke about. Could an image, or halucination have broken bread with them, cooked fish, and eaten? Jesus, as is recorded at the end of one of the gospels, gave "many convincing proofs" to his disciples that he had risen from the dead.

Indeed, the only reason I can see for believing that this event did not take place is the fact that you probably don't believe in miracles. Any other historical fact so strongly attested to would be immediately accepted as valid.

Point 5 is also incredibly powerful. The majority of my prayers have all been favorably answered. I have experienced from God, at one time, a bliss so strong that it caused me to weep, and I knew with absolute certainty that nothing like this could exist without God causing it. I have sensed angels and demons at various times, and they weren't merely sensings, but were accompanied also with very real physical facts. Like my turning the page of the Bible immediately after sensing an angel and reading something like "angels came among them," a passage from the Lord. I once saw a demon. Once I sensed one go into our house, and immediately a fight broke out between my brothers. I prayed in my head, blocking the demon's power, and immediately the fight stopped (that's only a small part of that spiritual experience- there is spiritual reason behind that occurrence). The Lord prophesied to me that the war with Iraq would take place, before it happened, and has also prophesied to me at various times what events would happen in Entmoot, a few days before they did. I've only known the Lord personally for about two years, and already my spiritual journal is 270 pages long.

This is only my personal experience with Christ. The proofs for me about Christ are overwhelming. But I am far from the only Christian to have a personal relationship with Christ. The testimonies of other Christians are numerous, and they can be very powerful.