Jobar

You're quite right, you didn't say that. But bucky, haven't you gotten it clear yet that evolution does not address the question of origins!?

If you think that god is constantly tinkering with life so that it appears to have evolved, and to still be evolving- if you, as a YEC, deny that the Earth has every appearance of great age [added: and is in fact that old]- then you're not reacting to the universe itself, but to a completely whacky interpretation of a very short section of a very old book! In effect, you are treating this aspect of the world as if god has lied to us about it!

buckshot23

What is this business with "bucky"? Everybody is starting to call me that. Should I be flattered or insulted?

I suppose "Origin of the species" was improperly named. In any case I AM talking about origins. Creation does address origins. I still think evolution is talking about origins and it is up to you how far back those origins occured.
I don't think that.
I couldn't care less what your assessment is of the YEC interpretation of that "old book". I am not asking you to adopt my position. Furthermore I fail to see how a literal interpretation of genesis is "whacky". What is "whacky" is forcing long ages into the text via gaps or metaphorical days.

Richard Forrest

So what? You jumped to the conclusion that I was arguing from authority.

What misattribution? Are you saying that you use the term "macroevolution" in a way which is not dependent of the existence of "kinds"?


Evolution is change in the genetic makeup of populations of living organism over time. There is no "micro" and "macro" evolution. If biologists use those terms, they are referring to the scale at which they are studying the same phenomenon.

If you wish to make a distinction between "micro" and "macro" as process, you need to make a distinction which is biologically meaningful.


If you want to make any sort of sense in terms of biology, just use the term "evolution". If you want to make a distinction at the level of process between evolution at difference scales of investigation, you need to justify that distinction in terms which are biologically meaningful. Otherwise you have no coherent argument.

Could you point out to me where, in any of their articles, they refer explicitly to a miracle as part of their "scientific" explanation? The example you gave avoids the issue of whether a miracle was involved or not by saying that they don't know how the animals got to the ark.

Furthermore, do you not see the internal contradiction of asserting that they believe in miracles - by which I presume you mean miraculous intervention, not just an appeal such as "wow! it's that miraculous!" - and claiming at the same time that their approach can be scientific?

The bible does'nt say how God created at all! There are however passages in the bible which are contradicted by physics, such as stopping the sun in the sky.

There is no "non-evolutionary biology". Without the underlying concept of evolution, nothing in biology makes any sense. It is the equivalent od referring to "non gravitational physics".

The fact that different people have interpreted it differently means that the text is ambiguous in it meaning.
Of course not, but if they do they can ask me and I can put them right. You cannot say the same about the bible.
This is nothing but an empty assertion. If your interpretation is the most internally logical you should be able to demonstrate that by comparing your interpretation to other interpretations, and show that yours has fewer logical flaws. It's not a matter of your belief that it is the most logical. It's something you need to demonstrate to support your assertion.
Perhaps not, but that is not the point I was making.

So what? That was not the point I was making.

So please point out to me where in any of their articles they explicitly use miraculous intervention as part of a "scientific" argument?

No, I'm not. I'm saying that they do not invoke miraculous intervention as part of their arguments which are "scientific".

So, once again, we have to rely on your subjective reading between the lines to understand what the authors of the article mean.

They do not say "it may have been a miraculous event". They say "we don't know". That does not imply a miracle if your approach is scientific, which they claim it is.

My beliefs are a personal matter I do not discuss here. My acceptance of evolutionary theory is based on the evidence, and the interpretation of that evidence through scientfic means.

You, on the other hand, do not base your beliefs on the evidence. Your beliefs are based on an interpretation of the biblical text, and reject the evidence. They are based on authority. The text of the Bible is highly ambigious, and has been used to give authority to diametric opposites. Both slavers and anti-slavers used the bible to give authority to their arguments, for example. So there has to be some means by which you determine what the bible is actually saying. You must have some means by which you determine which parts are a literal account, and which are metaphoric.

Not in the sense that you use the term with reference to your own beliefs. The evidence shows that that the earth is very ancient. You can look at the same evidence as I do, and if you think that the earth is not ancient, provide an arguement based on that evidence to support your case.


This is not a debate about the interpretation of the Bible, but on the principles of investigation. Science is a way of investigating the natural world which is based on a rigid proceedural system to avoid ambiguity. You claim the authority of the Bible for your beliefs, yet the it is a fact that the Bible is written in a highly ambigious way, and that the same authority has been used to support diametrically opposite viewpoints.

So you are interpreting the words of the Bible in some way.
How? Do you have an inductive method of interpretation, so that anyone using the same method will come to the same interpretation?


Now, to get back to another of the many, many unanswered questions.

You accused me of "crying wolf far to many times".

When have I "cried wolf" - i.e which of the statements I have identified as false on AiG pages are demonstrably true?
Take two of the most obvious falsehoods I keep coming back to:
1) the assertion made by the AiG authors that for fossilisation to occur, burial must be rapid (as in a flood"). I have given you reams of papers to read, referred to you to specimens which demonstrate categorically that this is not the case.
Your response?
"It is the opinion of the authors" - which is irrelevant, as no matter what their opinion is, it is still false
or
that you will look into it when you have the time - which you somehow never seem to have.

2) The assertion that the biblical account gives a framework for scientific investigation. You accept that it isn't - you argue that miracles played some part in it, and even identify part of the article as invoking the miraculous (though it is by no means clear that this is indeed what the authors are saying). If this is the case, their approach cannot be scientific. Yet you defend the authors by stating that this is an opinion, even though there is nothing in the way the statement is written to suggest that it is. Furthermore, even if it is the opinion of the authors, it is nevertheless false. The biblical account was rejected by science over two centuries ago because it is not supported by the evidence.


How about another one:
If the authors of AiG articles claim that their approach is scientific, why should they not be expected to maintain the same standards of integrity in their argument as one would expect of any other scientist?

I presume that if you do not respond to my points it is because you have no contrary argument to offer, and therefore accept them.

So we are clear that
1) You interpretion of the Bible is dependent on your assumption of its divine origin
2) That if someone can come to different interpretations of the biblical text, is it not because they have been corrupted by evolutionary assumptions.
3) That the concept of "kinds" is a factor in your rejection of evolution.
4) That a "plain reading" of the Biblical text is impossible because the words cannot be separated from their cultural context, because they are part of oral tradition, because you read them only in translations which may have been manipulated for political reasons, and because there are older, Summerian accounts which contain elements of the Biblical account.

Richard Forrest

Sven

I assume trying to teach the lurkers something: The emptiness of YEC.

buckshot23

Now you understand my hesitation in divulging them.

buckshot23

Yes they are my beliefs afterall.
I am not aware of changing them.
Who can "prove" anything?
When am I making stuff up?
Wrong the evidence itself just the interpretation.
False.

budgie

The Origin of Species : By Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

Notice the wording in the title of some book by a Chuck Somebody...he is discussing how species...erm...speciated, not how organisms came into being. If he wanted to talk about the origin of organisms, he would have titled his book "The Big Bang and It's Consequences: Now What?"

-jim

btw I'm a biochemist that didn't receive any formal evolutionary training from my alma mater. I just read books.

buckshot23

Apparently they did teach you all about tangents. What specifically are you trying to demonstrate here?

Donnmathan

Since you really want to know - I started the flight discussion, but you chimed in with basicly the same kind of arguments you have used here. Link to thread,
It is an attack on me, rather than the points made. Didn't your mother ever tell you that if you can't say something nice, don't say anything?
No, not at all. It really doesn't matter HOW those "steps" got there, for the purpose of the argument; it only matters that they do exist. They got there somehow, and so I can prove that the steps I need can and do exist. The laws of evolution only come into play when I state that there is a way to connect them. Besides - you are asking for a possible means of evolving flight - telling me I can't assume evolution at some point is like asking how a bridge can be built, then screaming bloody murder when someone assumes that there will be workers to build it.
Care to explain why not? I used the theory to extrapolate a pathway for flight to evolve. How is that not a model, to be proven, expanded, or shot down?
:thumbs: It's a step in the right direction. Now, if you can admit to yourself why you can't show it is impossible, we might get somewhere.
I'm not angry, I'm just frustrated. You assert that evolution is impossible, but have NO rational reasons, just a "personal view". We try to show you the ways that its possible, and you reassert that you feel it is impossible. Great. Feelings don't mean squat in this sort of discussion, buck. My advice is, come up with a good scientific reason for evolution to be impossible, or stop making the assertion.